BEER!![9] – Murray’s WILD THING

Name: Wild Thing.

Brewery: Murray’s.

Place Of Origin: Bob’s Farm, NSW.

Type: Imperial Stout.

Alcohol Content: 10.0% - a new BEER!! record.

Why I Bought It: It had ten per cent to do with that I’ve liked Murray’s beers in the past. Five per cent to do that I like stout. And eighty-five per cent to do with the bottle having a Catwoman-like figure in a leather suit.

Taste: Despite its 10.0% ABV I don’t remember it tasting it any more alcoholic than your usual stout. But at 10.0% ABV, perhaps the key words here are ‘don’t remember’.

What I did while drinking it: Take a picture of the bottle, and posted it on Facebook so that I could let all my beer-drinking friends know I was drinking ‘Catwoman stout’ and they weren’t.

What I did after drinking it: Played ‘The Walking Dead’ video game, which I reviewed here earlier this week. When the zombie apocalypse comes, stout is what will get the human race through.

The Shit Gamer’s Review : The Walking Dead

‘The Walking Dead’ has been one of the most talked about video games over the past couple of years, as evidenced by the fact that I had actually heard of it. It consists of five interconnected episodes in which you take the character of Lee Everett, a convicted criminal, as he tries to survive in another zombie apocalypse. For a zombie game there is actually little action, and for an adventure game there are relatively few puzzles; much of the game consists of event scenes and conversations, some of which you have two or three options for choosing what Lee will say. And therein lies the game’s hook – through the words you say and the choices you make, you can influence how the story unfolds. Other characters will react differently, or even live and die, by what you choose to do at each point. It does really feel like watching a TV show in which you get to ‘be’ the main character.

For a shit gamer like me, this style of game is irresistible. Compared to most other games, fighting off the bad guys is a relatively simple task. Jumping across buildings and manoeuvring along ledges requires just a click on a circle, or tapping away on a single key. There are even huge chunks of the game in which I don’t have to make any actions at all. Never in my experience in the gaming world has my lack of dexterity and accuracy in pressing buttons been less punished.

But ah… isn’t there the stress of being able to quickly make the right decisions so as to get the best possible outcome for yourself and your group of survivors? While it is indeed true that watching the timer run down while I try to figure out what the hell I’m going to say did increase the heart rate a little the beauty for me of ‘The Walking Dead’ is that not only does it not punish you if you are a shit gamer, it does not punish you if you are a shit decision maker either (or if you can’t make any decision). The decisions you make will affect the details of the story, but not its general path; regardless of what you do or fail to do you basically end up in the same place.

All of this may sound a bit boring to those who like to have a bit of agency in their gaming, but to me ‘The Walking Dead’ is brilliant. Like the comic and TV show, watching these characters try to survive is absorbing, but you are even more invested in what happens because you feel like part of the group. Actions can have surprising consequences, and you will not know which seemingly innocuous decisions in early episodes will come back to (literally) bite you or your comrades later on. Also, when the whole game takes about ten hours to play, even the worst gamer can feel like an arcade superstar.  And even with a zombie apocalypse, there was still less death than when I play Super Mario Bros. 

What Is The Benefit Of ‘Sneaking’ Into The AFL Finals?

AFL media and fans make a big deal out of just ‘sneaking’ into the final eight, and out of just missing out on the final eight as well. In terms of a team’s chances of winning the premiership, just making the final eight has, empirically, next to no benefit – no team has won the premiership from eighth spot since the final eight began in 1994, nor from seventh, nor from sixth. A final for eighth does bring extra revenue of course, though historically only one or two weeks’ worth.

However, some might think there are the lasting benefits of having played a finals match in terms of helping the team win games in subsequent seasons. As a data-based football fan, and not a narrative-based one, my prior belief is that this is a load of baloney, but what do the numbers actually say? Below are the winning percentages of the teams that finished eighth and ninth in every season since 1994 over each of the next three home and away seasons (click to enlarge).

Not that surprisingly, the average home and away winning percentages for teams that finish eighth and ninth over each of the next three seasons are pretty close to 50 per cent. Some teams in the middle of the ladder go up in subsequent seasons, some go down. For example, Brisbane finished eighth in 1997 and finished last the next season, while Essendon finished eighth in 1998 and won the minor premiership the next season. It also won the premiership the year after – the only team since 1994 to finish eighth or ninth to have done so within the next three years.

(Strangely, while every AFL fan is familiar with Richmond having finished ninth several times – six in total – no one really remembers that Essendon has finished eighth almost as many times – five in total – over the same period. More evidence that humans might be psychologically wired to remember losses suffered rather than benefits gained.)

Looking at the averages, eighth placed teams have done a little better on average than ninth placed teams in each of the next three years. But the differences in average winning percentages are not significant.

In comparison, and not surprisingly, the difference in average winning percentages in the next season of teams that finish first and last is significant – that is, teams that are really good one season are typically really good in the next season (though usually not quite as good), and teams that are really bad one season are typically really bad in the next season (though usually not quite as bad). The difference is significant after two seasons as well, but the teams are, on average, getting closer. By three seasons out, the averages are getting towards 50 per cent for these teams as well.

Therefore, the main benefit of ‘sneaking’ into the finals seems to be the extra revenue from playing one or two finals matches, and perhaps the psychological joy from being counted amongst the finals teams (though that is soon followed by the disappointment of being ousted). Or perhaps more correctly - given the way that humans might be wired - perhaps a main benefit of sneaking into the finals is avoiding the psychological anguish of just missing out.

The Wooden Finger Five: September 2013

1.    Gideon – My Morning Jacket

As Stan Smith from ‘American Dad’ once said, MMJ’s singer Jim James’ ‘voice makes Enya sound like a Russian couple arguing at the bowling alley’. Strangely enough though, that episode did not include this track from their album ‘Z’, which has probably his sweetest, most sky-floatingist vocal performance that I’ve heard from the beardy one to date.

2.    Evident Utensil – Chairlift

This track came to my attention in the past month when, apparently five years after it was released, I saw the trippy, mashed-up video clip. The image of one member wailing ‘How hard must I try?’ morphing into the face of another member matter-of-factly grumbling/croaking (‘groaking’?) the same line is the one that stuck with me the most.   

3.    Shame Chamber – Kurt Vile

In my post-Spotify era I’m still working my way through too many old albums to listen to too much new stuff, but I have been listening a bit to Kurt Vile’s new one, which is actually one of the few times to date I’ve taken notice of Spotify’s recommendations. This is actually atypical of KV’s new album in that, rather than being long and daydreamy it’s a modest five minutes long and rocky, which may help it stick out. The yelps at the end probably help it stick out too.

4.    Nite & Fog – Mercury Rev 

No, it did not take me until the past month to hear this, but it took me until the past month to rediscover it. I never bought the album – ‘All Is Dream’ that this was taken from, which is weird given how much I liked the Rev’s previous album ‘Deserter’s Songs’ … well, not that weird really, I was studying and had to conserve funds. Now, with unlimited music at my disposal, and twelve years more of life etched on my face, I can appreciate more fully Jonathan Donahue’s sighing ‘But you want it all …’

5.    Razorlight/Slipway Fires – Razorlight

Johnny Borrell is, by all reports, a bit of a berk, but perhaps fortunately most of his berkness bypassed me in the mid-2000s. I listened to Razorlight’s first album, ‘Up All Night’ a few years back, and even picked up a half-broken copy from a Borders’ firesale, but I thought that was probably going to be all the Borrell I would ever need. Then I listened to Razorlight’s self-titled second album, and thought it was … (whisper now) … really quite good. But that’s not the true horror; I then gave Razorlight’s much-panned third album ‘Slipway Fires’ a go, just out of curiosity, and (oh no) I liked that as well. Yes, I may well have become a Razorlight fan half a decade after I have any excuse to. My Dirty Projectors CD will look upon me in shame.  

The Wooden Finger AFL All-Australian Team 2013

Below are my picks for the AFL All-Australian team for 2013. There’s no use pretending these selections are based on an assessment from my watching all of the season’s games, or even a significant proportion of them (I don’t). My main inputs for these selections are reading who everyone else would select, seeing the SuperCoach scores, and my attempts to guess the psychology of the All-Australian selectors. On that score, I think the selectors will tend to favour players who have performed at a high level for the past two or three seasons – essentially if you’ve been in the frame before you’re a good chance to get selected this time – with Chad Wingard and arguably Will Minson and Lindsay Thomas the only picks I have made that have come out of relatively nowhere this season. 

B: Nick Malceski (Syd), Scott Thompson (NM), Michael Johnson (Fre)

HB: Jarrad McVeigh (Syd), Harry Taylor (Geel), Sam Mitchell (Haw)

C: Ryan Griffen (WB), Scott Pendlebury (Coll), Daniel Hannebery (Syd)

HF: Patrick Dangerfield (Adel), Travis Cloke (Coll), Steve Johnson (Geel)

F: Lindsay Thomas (NM), Jarryd Roughead (Haw), Chad Wingard (PA)

R: Will Minson (WB), Kieren Jack (Syd), Gary Ablett (GC)

I: Jobe Watson (Ess), Joel Selwood (Geel), Dane Swan (Coll), Nat Fyfe (Fre)

Also this year, I have put together the 2013 AFL ‘Freakin’ Awesome!’ team. The idea is that this is what the All-Australian team might look like if it was selected by a bunch of 12 year olds, with the only criterion for selection being that the player be ‘freakin’ awesome!’ (Would 12 year olds use the phrase ‘freakin’ awesome’? Probably not … I shouldn’t overestimate my insight into the psychology of today’s kids here.) Basically, unlike the actual All-Australian team, and with a few exceptions, your chances of being selected for this team once you pass the age of 24 become somewhat slimmer.

B: Pearce Hanley, Charlie Dixon, Nick Malceski

HB: Zach Tuohy, Harry Taylor, Luke Hodge

C: Ryan Griffen, Scott Pendlebury, Steele Sidebottom

HF: Dustin Martin, Jeremy Cameron, Steve Johnson

F: Cyril Rioli, Lance Franklin, Majak Daw

R: Nic Naitanui, Patrick Dangerfield, Gary Ablett

I: Nat Fyfe, Jeremy Howe, Ivan Maric, Jaegar O’Meara

AFL Power Rankings: Round 23 2013

RISING UP

Throughout 2013 St. Kilda has been highlighted so much in the ‘Falling Down’ section that it seems only fair to give them a run here after gaining over nine ranking points on the weekend. The Saints moved up to fourteenth spot after thrashing the depleted Dockers to put a positive end on a dismal year. The largest gain over 2013 though belongs to North Melbourne, who gained 24 ranking points and almost finished the home and away season in third spot, despite missing the actual AFL finals.

FALLING DOWN

The Fremantle Dockers fall down to their lowest placing of the year after getting thrashed by the lowly Saints. Dockers’ fans (and others) would no doubt note that their team rested twelve players on the weekend, and therefore their drop in ranking points this week doesn’t reflect the true quality of their team. And they may well be right. However, a similar thing might have been said when Collingwood switched places with Geelong after getting touched up the Cats in the final home and away round in 2011, and that proved to be prescient in terms of the results of the subsequent finals series. Meanwhile, the Dockers’ cross-town rivals, the Eagles drop another three ranking spots, and end up with the largest decline in ranking points for the season.

ALSO OF NOTE

After very little happened last week in the Power Rankings, nearly early team moved places this week, with the exceptions being the two teams, Melbourne and GWS, who have not moved at all in 2013.

Below is a summary of where each team has been during the course of the 2013 season (click to enlarge). As you can see, most of the movement was in the middle of the pack, in positions 5-10. 

And here is a summary of where each team spent the most time in the rankings this season, along with their highest and lowest rankings, and the variation (standard deviation) in their positions.

The Finger Points Outwards - No. 65

TELEVISION: ‘Breaking Bad’ actress Anna Gunn deals with the Skyler White hate.

BASKETBALL: Ranking the NBA team names.

ECONOMICS: Evidence that recessions increase worker productivity.

ECONOMICS: Lame duck Nobel laureates in economics.

FOOD: Using data to find the perfect sandwich.

HISTORY: Pretty men from many years ago.

 

Different Wage-Setting Methods and the Responsiveness of Wage Growth in Australia

In Australia, annual wage inflation, as measured by the Wage Price Index has tended to stay around 3-4 per cent over the past fifteen years (see graph below).  By the term ‘wage inflation’ I mean wage growth absent any changes in hours worked or changes in workforce composition, which is what the WPI is designed to measure. This might be considered a fairly narrow range for wage inflation; by contrast, while annual consumer price inflation has often been around 2-3 per cent over the same period, it has been somewhat more volatile, even without the period (2^nd half of 2000) in which the Goods and Services Tax was introduced.

From this, it looks like wage growth in Australia is not all that responsive to changes in the economy, at least in the short-term. I’ll leave it up to the individual reader to decide whether that is a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ thing. The main theme of this post is not to evaluate how ‘responsive’ wages should be, but try to give a sense of the contribution that each wage-setting method makes to the overall variability of wage growth.

In line with the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Employee Earnings and Hours survey, employees in Australia can be roughly divided up into three types of wage-setting method: awards, collective agreements, and individual arrangements. There are also working proprietors of incorporated businesses, but they make up only a small percentage of employees.

According to the Employee Earnings and Hours survey, over the past fifteen tears, around 15-20 per cent of employees in Australia at any one time have been paid at the award rate. Award rates include the ‘minimum wage’, but also minimum rates of pay for employees across a range of job classifications. Wages for these awards are (typically) set ‘centrally’ once per year through an annual wage review, which is currently undertaken by the Fair Work Commission. With some exceptions, over the past fifteen years, the increases to the national minimum wage have tended to be between 2.5 and 4 per cent each year (see graph below).  However, the relevant commissions have up until the past few years awarded ‘flat dollar’ increases, which provide for lower percentage increases for employees on higher award rates of pay. Given this, award-reliant employees have probably, on average, tended to receive increases of between 2 and 3 per cent each year, assuming that award reliant employees are bunched towards the lower award rates of pay.

Over the past fifteen years, around 40 per cent of employees have at any one time had their wages set by collective agreements. Enterprise bargaining agreements were introduced in the early-1990s, allowing for agreements on the wages and conditions of employment to be struck between an individual employer and a group of employees. On average though, the average annualised wage increases for these agreements – at least for registered federal collective agreements – have tended to be almost always between 3.5 and 4.5 per cent in aggregate (see graph above).   Hence, wage increases for collective agreements appear to be the least ‘responsive’, or possibly more correctly the least volatile, of the three wage-setting methods.

One might argue that if you strip out from the WPI wage increases for collective agreements and awards, then what is left - essentially wage increases for individual arrangements - is the part that ‘best’ reflects labour market changes. To illustrate this, I have calculated year-ended increases for an ‘adjusted WPI’, which has been calculated as follows:

Adjusted WPI/year-ended increase for individual arrangements =

(Year-ended increase for WPI –

(proportion of employees on awards)*(year-ended increase for awards) –

(proportion of employees on collective agreements) * (year-ended increase for collective agreements))

/(1 -  proportion of employees on awards - proportion of employees on collective agreements)

Note the calculations are a little rough, but I don’t think it detracts from the main points.

·         The proportions of employees on awards and collective agreements are taken from the biannual Employees Earnings and Hours survey (i.e. they change only every two years, although one could interpolate the changes between surveys).

·         The year-ended increases for awards are the most recent percentage increase awarded for the minimum wage by the relevant federal commission, adjusted downwards by a quarter in the years when there were ‘flat dollar’ increases for awards.

·         The year-ended increase for collective agreements is the average annualised wage increase for current registered federal collective (enterprise) agreements.  This series does exclude state collective agreements, and it does not exactly show what wage increases for these agreements were over the past year, given that agreements can run multiple years. If I’m ever in a situation where I need to refine this methodology a bit further I’ll tinker with this series, but for now I think it will do.

 

As you can see from the graph above, the ‘adjusted WPI’ was around 2 per cent in year-ended terms at the start of the millennium, then moved up to around 5 per cent when the labour market was tight in 2005-2006, and has moved back down to the 2-3 per cent range following the global financial crisis. This series seems to me to be more reflective than the ‘ordinary’ WPI of the relative strength or weakness in the labour market over this period. Given this, it could be an easier series to forecast, although obviously to get an aggregate wage growth forecast you would have to add the effects of awards and collective agreements back in. The adjusted WPI’s correlation with employment growth (lagged four quarters) is a touch stronger than the ordinary WPI. Where both fall down is when employment growth plummeted following the height of the GFC, which might well reflect downward ‘stickiness’ of wages.

While I said that I’m not interested here in evaluating whether a particular level of ‘responsiveness’ in wages is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, it would be interesting to see how employers with collective agreements respond to economic shocks compared to employers paying award rates or with individual arrangements with their employees. I am sure there is probably a lot of evidence in terms of the effects of various pay-setting methods on activity or productivity or prices, but I wonder if anyone has specifically looked at the short-term responses of employers to economic shocks based on their pay-setting methods. If your pay-setting method means that wages do not move around much, are you more likely to change employment instead, or does it make little difference? Are relatively stable wage increases harmful or helpful? I’ll leave those questions for someone else to consider.