Showing posts with label Business and commerce. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Business and commerce. Show all posts

Sunday, December 25, 2016

Abraham Lincoln, the visionary....


and sign up for daily email alerts so you can
keep getting this daily reminder about my poetry, book reviews
and other blog posts. Thanks!


“…corruption in High Places…”

Old Abe got it right….

Read the full post with pictures on my new website:

Monday, November 28, 2016

Monday, November 7, 2016

The media giveaway helped Trump



The media grabbed profits, gave Trump $2 billion of free air time, and gave up any pretense of presenting objective news as a public service.

Read the full post on my new website:

Thursday, October 27, 2016

AT&T and Time Warner: not perfect together


AT&T wants to buy Time Warner for $85.4 billion.

This should be an easy call for the regulators: no way this acquisition should be approved.

Let’s just leave aside for a moment the colossal impact this merger would have on the telecommunications and entertainment industries. It would concentrate too much power in these rapidly evolving consumer industries.

We hear so much—including all the wrong stuff—about the compelling benefits of the so-called “free market.” This kind of consolidation is totally destructive to the arguable advantages of the “free market,” and, in fact, this kind of reality confirms the persistent failure of the “free market” to effect anything that’s much good for the average person.

At a fundamental level, this combination creates a manifestly unmanageable organization. Initially, the merged company would have more than 300,000 employees. No group of human beings can successfully and strategically manage an organization with that many human components. Just. Not. Possible.

I won’t even bother to speculate about how many of those 300,000-plus employees would retain their jobs.



Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Friday, October 21, 2016

I still don’t know who shot J. R.



It was 36 years ago.

More than 3 out of 4 American households—and half of the adults in this great land—tuned in to “Dallas” to finally learn who shot J. R.

Around the world, 350 million people watched the first episode of the third season of the blockbuster primetime “drama” to get the lowdown on the lowdown skulker who did the deed.

Some people didn’t watch the show. Like me. You can read all about it here. I’ll be honest, I skimmed the story on History.com and I still don’t know the name of the shooter.

Ignorance shall be my penalty.


I’m gonna guess that the number of folks in the U. S. who know that name is larger than the number of folks who know when the Constitution was ratified, and larger than the number of folks who know what “arsenal of democracy” means.



Go figure.








Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Eight-year-old kids go on strike


The abuses of child labor are no longer a big issue in America. Child labor was a big deal in the latter part of the 19th century.

The Industrial Revolution came to America as early as 1813, when the first water-powered textile mill opened in Waltham, MA. Within a few decades, mills and factories were sprouting along waterways everywhere, and workers streamed off the farms to join immigrants who were employed at low wages.


The ongoing abuses of child laborers were condemned (by unionized adults) as early as the 1830s. In the following decades, regulation of the working conditions for kids occurred piece-meal, state by state. By the end of the 19th century, 28 states had enacted laws governing (but not outlawing) the working hours and conditions for children. Work by youngsters was finally outlawed in America when the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in 1938.

In 1881 eight-year-old textile workers in Maine—some of them working for eight cents a day— started a strike when they discovered that kids their age at another mill were making a penny more per day. The three-day strike was partly successful.

Mill owners and factory owners and other 19th century capitalists were forced, over time, to cease exploitation of poor kids on the shop floor.



Imagine that you work in a 19th century mill making textile products. Imagine that you take your eight-year-old son to work with you every day, so he can work for 10-12 hours for pennies in grimy conditions with poor lighting, breathing air filled with cotton lint and climbing barefoot on the huge humming machinery so he can replace the empty spindles.

Imagine that you need his paltry income to keep food on the table for your family.


Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.


Thursday, October 13, 2016

The “golden years”—does anyone still say that?



Americans who aren't retired yet say they're going to keep working for a while….recently they said 66 is the average age when they plan to clean out the desk and head for home.
  
I think that's optimistic. They're probably going to work a little longer than that, because a lot of folks are getting the idea that Social Security benefits aren't going to get a whole lot better in their realistically attainable future, and, anyway,  most folks who are still working only have about one egg in the old retirement account….

A Gallup poll recently said that folks who are already retired hung up their track shoes at the average age of 61. In the early 1990s that number was 57, so part of the reason that retirees are getting older, aside from increasing life expectancy, is that they're waiting longer to punch out.

The whole notion of "retiring" is a relatively new concept. You only have to look back to the pre-World War II era to see a world in which the average person basically expected to work until she died, or became too sick or frail to work anymore.

American society hasn't completely figured out this retirement thing yet.
  


If  you're in your prime, you really need to think carefully about the current and long term effects of government policies on your personal future. Congress isn't doing anything that makes sense right now.

All of us need to take personal responsibility for retirement, and we have to make sure the government doesn't screw it up..



Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Lake Wobegon at Veterans Affairs



A while back the New York Times revealed that every one of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ 470 senior executives had been rated “outstanding” or “fully successful” at least once in the last four years, and most of them got one of these top two ratings in multiple years.

In a one-year period almost 80% of the VA’s senior execs were rated “outstanding” or “fully successful.” About two-thirds of them got bonuses.

Over four years, none of the senior VA honchos received either of the lowest two performance ratings—not one of them, not once.

It's a miracle. Seems every one of them is above average....

This report says as much about a big organization like the VA as it says about the egregious failure of darn near everyone everywhere to implement a performance evaluation system that actually evaluates widely varying performance, instead of simply forcing supervisors to complete the hated chore of doing a once-a-year gloss of their subordinates' work performance that disguises the identity of all the poor performers.

This report also is another stupefying example of top executives being allowed to claim that "bonuses are vital to hiring and retention" without having to prove it. Of course, that claim can't be proved, because it's not true. 




No bonus plan has ever been shown to materially improve discriminating selection of "the best candidates" or "retention of the high performers."

You know, it's the old "every Little Leaguer gets a trophy" mindset....




















Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Sunday, October 9, 2016

Are you a great manager?


This started out as another one of those "Top 10 Ideas For...." but I whittled it down to three, for your delectation.

This was distributed by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), see their website here, and originally appeared on Edutopia as "Ten Big Ideas of School Leadership" by middle school principal Mike McCarthy.

I'm pretty sure Mike is pretty much on track, and his take on leadership is motivational and instructive for leaders or wannabe leaders in any organization. A few samples:

6) Take Responsibility for the Good and the Bad
If the problems in your school or organization lie below you and the solutions lie above you, then you have rendered yourself irrelevant. The genius of school lies within the school. The solutions to problems are almost always right in front of you.

I think of it this way: If you think only the folks below you are causing all the problems, and you also think only the guys above you can fix ‘em, what does the boss or your subordinates need you for?

7) You Have the Ultimate Responsibility
Have very clear expectations. Make sure people have the knowledge, resources, and time to accomplish what you expect. This shows respect. As much as possible, give people the autonomy to manage their own work, budget, time, and curriculum. Autonomy is the goal, though you still have to inspect.

I think of it this way: Be the boss, mostly by setting the tone, setting the example, sometimes setting the boundaries, setting the aiming stake in the right place, setting the time for the next team meeting, setting the “But We’ve Always Done It This Way” rule book on fire, etc………..and every so often check to make sure that nobody has set the factory on fire….

9) Consensus is Overrated
Twenty percent of people will be against anything. When you realize this, you avoid compromising what really should be done because you stop watering things down. If you always try to reach consensus, you are being led by the 20 percent.

I've found that most students--and most folks--usually think that “consensus” means that everyone has to agree. No, no, no. I embrace the idea that “consensus” means that every member of the group either stout-heartedly endorses the idea or at least acknowledges that she can live with it and support it as a reasonable alternative to her own favored decision/plan/concept. And yes, it’s true that sometimes the group or the boss must say to the high-principled or defiant holdout: “we respect your view and your input, but we’ve talked it through, we’re gonna do it a different way, and you need to support that.”








Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2010 All rights reserved.

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Heard this one before?


Think back to the antebellum South, in 1850.



  
The census of that year shows that, of roughly 660,000 households in the southern states, the 1,000 leading households of the plantation elite received about $50 million in annual income. 



The rest of the population earned only about $60 million annually.

Can you say “inequality”?

Any part of this sound familiar?

  
Source:

Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, 1492-Present (1980; repr., New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2005), 236.








Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

What happened to the cream?....


My trusted personal advisor shared this insight about inspired management and charismatic leadership:

An acquaintance who had worked at Walt Disney World during most of the 1970s recalled that each area of the park and each attraction had a daily designated "Lead," that is, an hourly employee who was temporarily paid $1 extra per hour and had limited authority and responsibility to make on-the-spot decisions regarding any facet of that area's or that attraction's immediate need.


The “Lead” was particularly focused on the “magic,” making sure that the guests had a supercalifragilisticexpialidocious experience. If you were at Disney at that time, as a cast member or guest, you know what I mean.

This system worked pretty well, and a "higher up" manager was rarely ever called in to make a final decision.

Fast forward to 1993. Disney had eliminated its reliance on a designated “Lead” hourly worker, and, of course, stopped giving extra pay to the designees. The expectation in the executive suite was that when an on-the-spot decision needed to be made “the cream would rise to the top," in Disney management's exact words, and that a self-motivated employee would step up and make the call.


Overall, it was a huge failure. Disney execs couldn't understand why the areas and attractions fell so quickly into mismanagement, why there was extensive down time, why the "good people" quit, and why there was a notable loss of "magic" in the Park….

….ummm, d’ya think of any possible explanation?



Saturday, September 24, 2016

Better than releasing Trump’s tax returns



Trump’s hiding stuff by refusing to release his tax returns. We all know that.

The New York Times says that Trump and all his companies have pulled in at least $885 million in “tax breaks, grants and other subsidies” in New York for all of his real estate projects.

Here’s my idea: if Trump pays back the whole $885 million before November 8, I’ll stop clamoring for him to release his tax returns.

The guy’s worth billions, right? Does anybody think he couldn’t afford to do that?

The payback wouldn’t make him presidential material, but it would be the right thing to do.







Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Pricetag on bigotry



What does bigotry cost? Well, for starters, in North Carolina, it costs more than $200 million.

You remember this: the Republican-dominated legislature in North Carolina passed H.B.2 earlier this year, to prevent transgender people from using the public bathroom of their choice.

So far, that hateful act has cost the state and its business community and its citizens hundreds of jobs and more than $200 million in taxes and business revenues.

Why? One high-profile answer is: the NCAA canceled seven big sports events—including the NBA All Star game—that were scheduled in North Carolina this year. Another answer: Bruce Springsteen canceled a concert. Other businesses, organizations and musicians canceled performances, conventions and building projects.

Bigotry hurts. In many ways.

p.s. Really stupid bigotry hurts just as much as the other kind. This bathroom law was always unenforceable—no one ever thought the police would order sports fans in Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte to drop their pants for inspection before using the toilet.









Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Don’t vote for Johnson or Stein “to make a statement”



Paul Krugman laid it right out in yesterday’s New York Times:
"Nobody cares” if you vote for Johnson or Stein on November 8 because you want to raise the middle digit to "the system."

Krugman’s key point: Clinton or Trump will be the next president of the United
States, so “don’t vote for a minor-party candidate [just] to make a statement. Nobody cares.”

Rightly enough, he says that if you really think Johnson or Stein, and the platforms of the Libertarian  Party or the Green Party, are right for America and they should have the power of the presidency, then by all means vote for one of them.

But. Seriously.

Krugman bets that many Johnson/Stein supporters are mostly anti-Trump/anti-Clinton kinds of people, who haven’t read those party platforms and really haven’t thought through the consequences of Johnson or Stein getting to redecorate the Oval Office.

Here’s Krugman summarizing the Libertarian platform:
“…it calls for abolition of the income tax and the privatization of almost everything the government does, including education. What really struck me, however, was what the platform says about the environment.
It opposes any kind of regulation; instead, it argues that we can rely on the courts. Is a giant corporation poisoning the air you breathe or the water you drink? Just sue: ‘Where dam­ages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.’ Ordinary citizens against teams of high-priced corporate lawyers — what could go wrong?”

Here’s my simple summary of the Green platform:
It's chock full of really good, really feel-good, and mostly unrealistic ideas that have nothing in particular to do with world trade or job creation or infrastructure investment or effective regulation of the financial markets or health care reform or bipartisan government or…..

Neither Johnson nor Stein is going to win the election.

If you strongly endorse elements of either or both of these platforms, image what will happen if Trump wins the presidency?

Krugman again: “Your vote matters, and you should act accordingly—which means thinking seriously about what you want to see happen to America.”








photo from pixabay.com
Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

The other boondoggler….


The horror of Trump’s lies continues.

Meanwhile, Paul Ryan is still doing his thing, inviting careless journalists to call him a policy wonk while he continues to offer the standard claptrap about helping Americans by giving more money to the super rich.

WashingtonPost.com pointed out yesterday that the latest incarnation of House Speaker Ryan’s “tax plan” would funnel 99.6 percent of the proposed tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, according to the Tax Policy Center.

The stupefying bottom line: the 1 percenters would get average annual savings of about $240,000 per household.

Last year, the median household income for all Americans was $56,500—that’s the median, meaning half had more and half had less.

So Ryan’s tax chicanery means that the richest 1% would get tax SAVINGS equal to more than four times the amount of PRE-TAX total income that the median household earned last year.

That’s not a tax plan. That’s legalized robbery.

Let’s not even talk about what the Republicans want to do about business taxes.









Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.

Sunday, September 4, 2016

Media “fairness” is bogus


I’ve been noticing this in the past several weeks. Maybe you have, too.

The media, after finally getting around to actively and explicitly reporting the grotesquely negative aspects of Trump’s presidential campaign, are spending more or less “equal time” grinding away at the Clinton campaign.

Example: a few days ago TheNation.com reported “Hillary Clinton’s [August 25] speech on the racial bigotry and white grievance that pollutes Donald Trump’s campaign should turn out to be the most consequential address of the campaign, even of the decade.”

You can agree or disagree about how notable the speech was, but there’s no denying that Trump is ringing so many bells that encourage public display and, in effect, legitimize public expression of hatred and bigotry against our fellow Americans who don’t have white skin.

In response, Trump said and tweeted repeatedly that Clinton is “a bigot.” No details, just that dastardly epithet.

Now, Joan Walsh at TheNation.com goes on, “…you can dislike Clinton’s speech. You can fact-check it, and perhaps find something wrong—although to my knowledge nobody claimed any inaccuracy. But what you really shouldn’t do, if you are a journalist of any kind of conscience or capacity, is act as though Clinton had somehow gotten down in the gutter with Trump—merely by describing what Trump is doing.


“Yet that’s the kind of coverage we got. Some commenters got it right, but the reporters and editors charged with “objectivity” immediately equated Clinton’s clear-eyed exegesis of Trump’s racially divisive campaign with Trump’s calling her a “bigot.” The Washington Post headlined its story: “Clinton, Trump exchange racially charged accusations.” Bloomberg went with “Trump and Clinton trade charges of racism.” Lots of outlets went for the more colorful metaphor of “barbs:” The Huffington Post, Fox News, CNBC, and the Financial Times all went with some version of “Clinton, Trump trade barbs on race.”

....and on and on....Shame on American media for hyping their coverage of the campaign for audience ratings points, and for trying to cover their tracks by foolishly and fecklessly giving “fairness” a bad name.

I don’t believe there’s a “media conspiracy” favoring either the right or the left.

I do believe that almost all of the media are doing a crappy job. This is congruence, not conspiracy. It’s worse than conspiracy.










Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016  All rights reserved.

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Why doesn’t every headline say “stupid”?



Here’s a puzzler for you:

A drug company called Mylan has spread outrage throughout the land by abruptly hiking the price of its popular allergy drug to over $600—Mylan’s branded “Epipen” treatment sold for about $100 in 2007, when the company acquired the drug and started boosting its price.

In response to the firestorm of criticism from all sides, Mylan has now decided to sell a generic version of Epipen for only $300.

Are Mylan executives nuts?

Why would a savvy for-profit company sell both a branded and generic version of the same product in a single market? Who’s gonna fall for this sinister razzle-dazzle? Why is the media coverage so gullible?

Why would any doctor prescribe the branded version?

Why would anyone pay for the branded version?


This is one of the legal but crappy aspects of our American health care system that must be fixed by the federal government and a single-payer insurance system.










Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2016 All rights reserved.