I think it is good to look for the best in people and situations. We all know the economy is really bad and many are jobless and in other dire straits. So what could be good about it?
May sound goofy, but I think we are weeding our some crooks! Folks like Petters, Hecker, Maddoff, and mortgage brokers who made fraudulent representations have been discovered, mostly due to the fallout in the economy. Kind of like musical chairs, when the music stopped they didn’t have a chair; or didn’t have a easy market for their shenanigans. I believe these and other frauds have been around for years, just unnoticed with all the money to cover them. When the money stopped, they were exposed.
Hopefully we have learned from these and regulators and consumers will be sharper in the future for having learned about schemes. It is a good thing to be rid of these schemes, i think the fall of the economy had something to do with it.
Some folks think really do believe in conservation and living a simple, minimalistic life style. I actually think they are on to something although it is may not be realistic for everyone.
Here is a clip from a Luther College guy who definitely practices what he preaches. He lives in Decorah, Iowa which is a small town that is conducive to this life style.
I think he is a socialist, which is a legitimate thing to be. I think his clip shows the vision of some socialists and how we can live a minimal, environmentally friendly life. It is actually intriguing!
It works for him, would it work for you?
I think by now everyone knows the US is in a financial bind. Too much debt, too much spending that increases debt, and many other problems. Why don’t they do something we keep asking?
One of the best classes I took while at Norwest 30 years ago was a class in problem solving and decision making. I like logic a lot and got a lot out of the class that I still use.
One part of the class was on dealing with a mess. The key in the course was to identify the problems and then address each one separately and fix it. I have used this technique countless times in my career and it really works.
I think we could use this approach in our government too. It seems we have three recurring issues, taxes and debt, spending and entitlements. Most of the solutions presented seem to try to solve them simultaneously, I think that is the rub. I suggest we break them down and get moving.
Taxes: Quit bickering about fairness and let the Bush tax cuts go away.
• If we truly all benefit from the government we should all pay a bit more. If the government needs cash we should all share in providing it. If one is paying taxes today, it should be a hardship they can manage.
• Address restructuring a tax structure that folks can agree is fair. Doing this separate from the above people will welcome a change.
• This is the only way I can figure out to find out if people really want a big government
Spending: Assuming the increased revenue takes some pressure off the budget, now seriously address all spending.
• There would be more pressure from the tax hikes to do this, and folks will support it to get their taxes reduced some time
• Separating the issue brings more focus to solving the spending problem
Entitlements: Review and restructure as necessary using many of the ideas that have been discussed for years.
• Most people want security in their social security for example, and many are concerned if it will be there for them when they retire. There are many solutions to this problem and for the sake of security must be addresses. People need to be able to plan their future and this is an important piece. Knowing for sure what will be there may be more important than less dollars for them.
• Take a rational look at healthcare and Medicare. The politicians have confused all of us I think, and I, for one, do not understand the future financial impact. As with social security, the result may not be pleasant, but could be certain.
I don’t claim to have all the solutions and recognize that what I have set forth here is irritating to both extremes of our politics. I do believe that unbundling the issues will help get solutions for the future.
This seems to be the popular advice given to our young people today and others in job transition too. I think it is great if you can do that but I have a few problems with that concept.
Like I said, it is good if you can find that career, but what is your higher goal? I think that higher goal is to be happy and one of the components of that is having a job and supporting yourself. No, I don’t think “it is all about money'” but let’s face it, we need it to survive.
I still see people struggling to find that dream job, the one that they believe will make them happy every day they go to work. My belief is that we may have created a self centered work concept, that work is all about us and how it fulfils us personally. The corollary of that is may we fear a job that doesn’t make us happy and that may create a reluctance to jump in and try something we aren’t sure will fulfill us personally.
I have a few suggestions on this:
• Create a life plan for yourself, include how you want to live, family, and identification of values that are most important to you. Set goals for what you want to accomplish, write them down, and track progress.
• Consider your dream job; is there a big market for it, is it realistic to get it with our experience, would it make a better avocation than vocation? Could you still do what you think you love in your spare time?
• Jump in and try something! There are thousands of different jobs out there and how can anyone know if they would or wouldn’t like them without trying one? You may discover you found it, and at the least, started the process of doing so while still putting bread on the table.
• Find the companies that have the best future opportunities for you. Usually these are the large companies and also provide a lot of training and development for those who are performing well too.
• Do the best you can in any job you take and distinguish your services from other employees. That is how promotions come, and success too. Any good salesman knows the value of getting your foot in the door and then increasing sales to the customer. Who wouldn’t love being successful?
• Success in one job also opens doors to another; business’s look to hire people with a successful track record, even in tough times.
• Be aware of your big goal of supporting yourself rather than a self serving one of fulfillment; if you are supporting yourself you lessen the chance of feeling sorry for yourself. That can lead to poor job performance and can create a downward spiral on earnings, keeping your job, and being happy.
• Prosperity doesn’t have to equate with selfishness; it gives one the ability of giving to help others too; you can’t do it if you are broke!
I’ve been thinking again.
When businesses get into trouble then need to quickly get new financing in order to execute their turnaround plan and stay alive. They approach lenders who may buy their plan and provide the money they can get, or they seek to bring new equity into their business. In the process of preparing a turnaround plan they frequently believe that more sales will solve their problem, but with some financial analysis discover that they must address their underlying problems or they will just go broke later with their faulty model.
Government has the luxury of just raising revenues to solve their problem as well as borrowing more money via issuance of bonds. But we are seeing that the debt levels are an increasing problem and may eventually hamper the opportunities for more debt and its cost. Like business, raising revenues my slow the losses, but if they don’t address why they are occurring may not go away. Raisin the “prices” on a select few doesn’t make a lot of sense either, most business would raise prices across the board. That is a tough sell for a business and government as we are seeing.
Maybe he government needs more equity? A bailout?
Paying more taxes for many is like throwing their money down a black hole. But investing it may provide something they would have interest in, especially since they are already “owners” of government and want it to be successful and solvent.
So rather than increase taxes by some percent why don’t we require that they buy US bonds and finance the turnaround like a business?
• That would move some debt to friendly sources, not foreign governments that we don’t want to rely on or be accountable to because of debt
• Set a term of 30 years on the bonds to preserve liquidity for the US
• Set a rate tied to CPI or other measure that would provide some sort of decent return
• Buyers would subordinate their bonds to entities that get a lower rate
• A creditor’s committee could be set up to which Congress would be accountable to for reporting progress in cost cutting and achieving the solvency to eventually repay the bonds
Sound crazy? Well I might be but am very interested in getting our problem solved and I don’t see anything happening except bickering and new tax schemes. Maybe it is time for equity?
Yes, I dream a lot, hence the name for my blog: “I’ve been thinking”
My articles are not based on lots of research, just my experiences in life and work. My hope is that someone will find it some day and find an idea that helps them n their career and life in general.
One idea I am developing is a speaking platform whereby I can share stories and things I have learned with people starting out or people on their way hitting roadblocks. It seems that every time I start to think that my ideas are old or not needed, I hear something that tells me to keep going.
One of these is personal finance and mortgages. I heard someone say the other day that the US government has over 50 programs to train people in financial literacy. I have no idea on who does these or what they talk about, but given the mortgage crisis I see the need for improvement. Especially in the area of home mortgages that have frustrated many people lately. Home ownership can be a tremendous joy, or dismal pain.
Most of what I have seen is the “how to” get a mortgage programs. There is a place for those but I would propose something a little different. Mostly in the area of analyzing risk in getting a mortgage. There are many:
• Risk of variable rate increasing
• Risk of home value decreasing
• Risk of costly repairs on home
• Risk of not honestly evaluating whether you can afford it.
• Risk of 2 incomes needed to make a payment
I’m not sure lenders would want me doing a class like this for prospects, although it may eliminate misunderstandings and defaults if the borrowers really understood what they are doing. In the old days we used to have to seemingly talk a mortgage banker into believing we understood what we were doing and how we were going to pay for it. We hated it, but it helped our decisions.
My class would not just be about how to get a mortgage, it would deal with the risks; what they are, how to manage them, and to determine if one is really prepared to enter into a loan like this. As on objective player I would ask hard questions that mortgage marketers don’t ask because their objective is to make mortgages. Mine would be to make lives better!
From my 40 years in business finance I always marvel at how some seem to figure out how to do things on other people’s money. And how they find ways to avoid risking their own.
I never worked with the mega deals and don’t claim to know much about them other than it takes a lot of money to make many of these plans work and they must seek investors who understand and trust that the management has a good plan and the experience and moxy to make them work. I dealt with the small ones and enjoyed helping these people make their business work.
I think much of the reason I like the small deals is that the owners have risk capital in the game; equity and personal guarantees are usually required to finance the business. I find that these people have a big “fire in their belly” to make their business work, both because they believe in it and they want to avoid personal loss. I don’t think the big deal guys are that concerned with personal financial loss other than the lost opportunity for gains on their free stock. Again, that is just my guess, I don’t have research to support this idea. Just years of experience.
I have also witnessed high success by people that knew how to start and run a business, make a profit and grow. Fastenal in Winona is a good example of how some guys started a business with $30,000 capital and built it into what is now a NYSE company. They had personal risk while building it too, but made their decisions work.
Getting small business started requires talent, market knowledge and the right product to meet the needs of the market. I see some common attributes to both big and mall that trouble me:
• Salaries are often determined based on the market value of the management people. That sounds good but how do you figure out if someone really believes in the endeavor or just wants a high paying job? (Fastenal guys had salaries of $100,000 for many years)
• Would management be more frugal if they had their own money at stake?
I recognize there pos and cons to these arguments, lots of them probably and by people much smarter than me. But it does get me thinking about how different things may be if people really had personal risk in their endeavors, big businesses, small businesses and even big government.
Well, that is a very sensitive topic for many I would assume. My intent is not to throw salt into anyone’s wound, just stimulate some thinking that may help someone get and keep his/her next job.
Let me be clear, many people lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Period. But I don’t think that is the case for everyone. I was one of them.
In my first job in public accounting I quickly found out I had a lot to learn. Accounting was the tip of the iceberg but things like office politics and dealing with others were also in the mix.
I was released in 1970 during a business downturn where there was not enough work for everyone on staff, hence their only choices to stay profitable would be to add clients or cut staff. Adding clients is a slow process, so they chose the latter and laid off about 10 of us.
I had been warned that I was on the list when they made their first cuts, and did my best to do better work for them. When I got the boot, the partner allowed that I had improved but that they still had staffing problems, so I was out.
One of the smartest things I did was to ask them why I was one of the chosen few to get laid off. The answer.. I had a lot of accounting to learn and was also quite introverted which is not a good trait for public accountants dealing with clients. He suggested I might consider another field!
Well I tried to get another job in public accounting but all the firms were in a similar position; too many people, too little work. I eventually got a position as an internal auditor for a large bank that needed accounting skills that I had, maybe more than most of their staff.
The important thing was what I learned getting fired. First, I needed to learn more accounting and pass the CPA exam, the “badge” of accounting expertise. I studied quite a bit for it and took a review course at the U of M to get through it. And I did! Partly to improve my brand and also to prove to myself and others that I could do it.
The introvert side was a little easier. I learned to relax more in a professional environment and let loose when appropriate. I became comfortable with the people I audited and built many relationships within and out of my division. In short, I came out of my shell. Later an industrial shrink would tell me that I was an introvert who learned to be an extravert to survive. He may have been right as I went on to excel in sales and management, all with good people skills.
Many businesses do not want to tell the people they fire why they were chosen as it leads to debates and conversations they really don’t want to have and they want to make the parting as palatable as possible, unless their is a real cause.
I think most of us could figure this out for ourselves if we thought about it. I don’t mean torturing ourselves about our failures, but taking a realistic look at why we think we may have been on the list of people to go. Many of us prefer to think that it wasn’t our fault, that we were discriminated against, or our boss just didn’t like us. We may be right, but if we take a closer look at ourselves w may admit some things that we can deal with, similar to what I did. A lot of layoffs are due to performance disguised as downsizing, I know mine was.
It may also make for better interviewing when asked why we lost our jobs, because if we are prepared and have thought it through, can put a positive spin on our answer showing we learn from experiences and differentiate ourselves with taking responsibility.
Just a thought, I don’t mean to discourage anyone. Mine may be just one story, but it worked for me,
Today I saw a news clip of an Occupy Wall Street protest. I’m not even sure where it was taken, but a sign holder caught my eye.
He was holding a sign that said “I will never get a job in this economy”. It is difficult to find jobs today, but in this guys case I think it will be much harder. Why? ATTITUDE
I used to make hiring decisions when I was in a corporation. My people would screen the applicants for the tangible things like education and experience as well as how they came across in the interview. I would talk with the people they recommended.
I looked for several things when I talked with them:
• Attitude! Were they positive, friendly and eager to work for us. Are they generally “up” people or chronic complainers. Would they be good representatives of our firm with our customers
• Understanding of service. Did they realize the corporation did not exist for serving them but the other way around?
• Willingness to work. Sometimes our people needed to work longer hours, weekends and out of town; would an applicant like this?
• Inquisitive. In the finance business it is necessary to learn about our clients; that is done by being inquisitive above and beyond the obvious
I do not know much about union jobs; so can’t speak to them. I do know that in the non-union world, particularly the professional environments I was in, are very competitive both in getting the job, keeping it and advancement in the company. The folks who get ahead focus on making their employer successful and reap the benefits personally for doing so. They are team players, willing to help each other, and are leaders.
I don’t think many businesses would hire someone who admits that they won’t get a job until the economy gets better. At least not until they run out of good applicants.
I am curious how some “kids” seem to figure out how to get jobs while others don’t. I would guess a lot of it comes down to parents who teach their kids if they want money they need to work for it. I may also guess that those same parents teach their kids that work is a good thing, not bad. I know mine taught me to work early on, and it was never viewed as a punishment no matter what the job was.
I have read that unemployment is low among college grads, although I confess I have not done much research on this. On the other hand, I have heard college kids say there are no jobs available for them when they graduate. I suspect some of that may be their majors, but I submit that some is also the old “I don’t want to do that” syndrome
I have two young friends who exemplify what it may take sometimes to get started in a career. One went to a prestigious college in the Midwest, the other the U of M. Both had lots of talent and could have been kids who would hold out for something “worthy” of their education. But they didn’t, they simply got started at something.
One went to a phone bank for a national corporation, the other went with a consumer finance subsidiary of a large bank. Neither of these jobs would be what I would call “goal” jobs, they aren’t prestigious nor are they very high paying, but each offered advance opportunities.
I highly respect what they have accomplished in a few short years. The phone bank person quickly advanced in the phone bank division and soon became a Vice President and manager. The corporation also paid for her MBA and she has a great career going. The second became a star at the finance company plus learned a ton about how people manage (or mismanage) their persona financial affaire. This guy was put on a fast track with a big promotion looming, but chose to take another position with a firm that he had been in contact with for several years. He parlayed his success into a new position with much more upside for him. He continues to examine the market for what he does although he has received several promotions in his new position. He would say that you should always be looking for opportunity.
I don’t think either of them just gave up on pursuing a dream job, they just got started and excelled at what they were doing. Promotions came and with those promotions they are finding that being aggressive and doing well is a dream in itself.
