racoma.com.phJ. Angelo Racoma on technology, economics, writing, problogging, and getting things done

photo credit: kekremsi

The MB article seems to have been truncated, though. So after you read the TechNews article, here’s the conclusion:

Most of these people would probably have such a support structure, paid by their own tax money, farthest from their mind. But with the benefits considered, this may not be such a bad proposition. Any economist worth his salt may tell you that with taxation comes some deadweight loss. And those critical of government might say that our taxes go nowhere (or perhaps, more accurately, mostly into the pockets of corrupt officials). But still, I believe our sector merits taking care of. After all, in tough times, good jobs are hard to get by, and many people resort to going abroad just to earn money. Freelancing and online businesses provide Filipinos an alternative which does not require uprooting oneself and being separated from one’s family for long periods of time. Isn’t it high time that freelancers, entrepreneurs and small businesses are also considered heroes of our economy?

Being an economist (with whatever definition that might entail), I shall be focusing on the economic and business aspects of technology, and sometimes also how it affects our daily, personal lives, especially with regard to productivity. If anyone would like to give me tips on stuff to write about, please feel free to send me a message.

I’ve come to realize that a lot of Filipinos have been fans of game shows (from the silly ones to the intellectually challenging ones) because of various reasons. These range from a desire to get rich quick, to the desire to escape from one’s problems (even momentarily), or even just to entertain oneself.

PCIJ has an in-depth analysis, mostly from the psychological aspect of the game show mentality.

Cash draws people, most of whom dream of getting as much of it as possible. But while cash prizes have always been a game-show staple, it used to be that contestants needed to have some modicum of skill, talent, or intelligence to have a shot at them. By contrast, the more popular game shows today ask only that contestants have a great desire to get their hands on lots of money — fast.

Networks claim they’re helping out people by not simply giving dole-outs but opportunities to have a better means of living.

Some observers say TV shows that are practically giving away huge amounts of money are actually exploiting the poor. This, they say, was most apparent in the “Wowowee” tragedy of 2006, where 71 people were trampled to death in a mad rush to get inside the Ultra stadium where the show was going to be held. Over 30,000 people had come — and camped out in front the stadium days before — hoping to win the P1-million cash prize and giveaways that included two houses and lots, 15 passenger jeepneys, two taxicabs with franchises, and 20 tricycles.

The fact that the program offered jeepneys, taxicabs, and tricycles among its prizes does show an effort to encourage enterprise among would-be contestants; its producers could also argue that all they were doing was giving people a leg up. Where they may have erred, however, is in failing to provide real criteria and means through which those who join and eventually win the prizes could feel that they truly deserve these.

Still, I think it’s the get-rich-quick mentality that prevails, and the producers exploit this. A lot of disadvantaged, uneducated people wishing to have a shot at these game shows look to these as means to escape poverty. As Ruffa Mae Quinto’s character said in one of her movies: habang may game show, may pag asa (while there are game shows, there is hope).

But as money mentors would say, if you have a low potential for money, or a poor financial blueprint, then whatever you gain from such activities are quickly lost. Have you heard of the Lottery winner who ended up poorer than he originally was only a year after winning his millions?

At any rate, of course there is entertainment value. And I’m particularly fond of those game shows that really challenge the mind, in terms of asking difficult questions, or requiring computation and risk-management.

But it’s still tantamount to gambling, if you rely too much on luck and circumstance, such as with lotteries and other such games of chance. It’s wise to take calculated risks. It’s foolish and sinful to gamble. There is a thin line easily crossed.

And to the millions out there who still languish in hunger and poverty, hoping for an easy way out—is there an easy way out at all?

[via the Daily PCIJ]

I’m not for it. I think the costs outweigh the potential benefits. Here’s an editorial of mine on the Blog Herald. For one, it’s not likely to be viable given that networks hire bloggers that are spread throughout different countries. Also, the offshoring of blogging jobs would be another issue. The very reason why networks hire bloggers from outside of the more developed countries—you get the same quality at less cost!

Sure, it’s good to have solidarity, and to harness the power of numbers. However, I believe in the power of free markets (I’m an economist, after all, right?). And here, I feel it’s best not to mess with with the pro-blogging industry as it is. If we want solidarity, we can do it through other ways, like by setting up groups, communities, professional associations even, that foster solidarity without necessarily making it an us-against-them proposition.

Check out my post on the PayPal for the Philippines blog.

PayPal has included the Philippines in its limited-functionality list. This means you can now register for an account and use it to pay online. That’s it. We still cannot do the following:

1. Receive money
2. Load up the account thru credit card
3. Withdraw money into a bank account

It’s a good development, but not good enough. Pinoys can now buy and pay for stuff online. But we cannot receive funds from other PayPal (and credit card) users here and abroad, which is, I think, what we need more. We’re still hoping (and lobbying) for full-fledged PayPal functionalities.

Here are some interesting info tidbits I picked up from yesterday’s One Internet Day Manila event. Maoi Arroyo, who presented on blogging for buzz (the most engaging presentation during the event, IMHO), cited some figures pertinent to blogger demographics in Metro Manila.

Based on the latest Blogosphere report (available only to Digital Filipino members), there’s an untapped way of talking to the young and upwardly mobile segment of Manilenyos:

• 18% of internet users read blogs
• 55% of bloggers are < 20 years old
• 20% of bloggers are between 20 to 29 years old
• 71% are male
• 84% are single
• 48% are students
• 97% have their own computers at home

I’d be interested in seeing the full details of the report. I guess I’d have to sign up for a membership for that (do you offer discounts for bloggers, Janette?). From this summary, though, one can surmise that there is still a good proportion of the Philippine market that can be tapped by blogging services or as blog readers, with only 18% reading blogs (knowingly or unknowingly, I’m not aware—there is a difference). I think there are about 10 million Internet users here in the country of about 80 million.

Thing is, most of our Internet users do not have their own computers at home. Some may have access to computers and the Internet at the workplace, but most others access the ‘net from cafes. The fact that 97% of bloggers have their own computers at home is indicative that the inconvenience of having to blog from an Internet cafe is a barrier to entry.

The figures are quite as expected, though, as they reflect the usual expectations from blogger/Internet user demographics. Most bloggers are younger than 20—perhaps teenagers—, most are male, and most are students. One notable concept from Maoi’s presentation yesterday was that the age group that comprises the 20-29 year-olds are probably what the marketers should target. They are, after all, the group with the most disposable income (as a ratio to total earnings) and probably the ones who have a higher propensity for consumption rather than saving.

Okay, sorry for the econ speak here. But you get the drift. When you’re young, unmarried and already earning—and you probably have stacks of credit cards—you’re bound to splurge on stuff for yourself. And this is just the ideal target for firms that sell clothes, apparel, gadgets, and other such things.

I think it’s a good idea to conduct a survey among my readers, just to know what my “market” is. After all I’m selling some things. And these are ideas.