James Frey: A Million Dollars off A Million Little Pieces
From the Washington Post: Oprah's Grand Delusion
From the NYT: Getting Rich by Making Stuff Up
The purpose of my blog site is not to spoon feed you information, form opinions for you, lull you into complacency, convince you of any personal, ideological or political stance but to challenge you, your thoughts, your ideas, your opinions, your notions, your conscience, to challenge the status quo, those who would suppress originality, creativity and entrepreneurship, those who shun change. I won't give you answers, they are for you to find out for yourselves.
"I suspect, however, that
The questions of outsourcing, to what degree and where continues to be asked and addressed by businesses all over the world. Although Pearlstein’s article focuses on
Outsourcing … and … Offshoring …
The fact that computing is becoming more like a utility is of no surprise, but to generalize that all computing will become a utility is both fallacious and shortsighted in terms of strategic planning and implementation. Although computing may one day be centralized and homogenized to a large degree, corporate competitive and strategic advantage does not have to be sacrificed because of computing. Though businesses such as Google and PayPal are definitely leveling forces within the business communities, they can also become part of a business’ competitive and strategic arsenal when properly leveraged and implemented.
Regardless of who does the computing, successful IT initiatives are a part of, and maybe key to, successful business initiatives and strategies. In smaller companies, it (often) simply is not cost effective to run IT departments, hence, the need to outsource. However, many larger companies may be able (and willing) to run IT departments yet many will choose to outsource fundamental IT functions to trim the bottom line. As
“The cold, hard truth is that management, shareholders, and investors are largely indifferent to where their profits come from or even where the employment is created. But they do want sustainable companies. Politicians, though, are compelled to stimulate the creation of jobs in a certain place. And residents –whether they are Americans, Europeans, or Indians – want to know that the good jobs are going to stay close to home.”[2]
As outsourcing's footprint grows and steps on the more affluent workforce, the more vocal workforce, there will continue to be roiling controversy and confusion (i.e., political, economic, displaced workforce, etc.) All the while our counterparts all over the world are ramping up their skills and resources not just to compete with us but to overtake us.
[1]
AR2005112901096.html>.
[2]
I read the article and attached memo in the
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/business/26walmart.ready.html
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/26walmart.pdf
He fails to put into proper context the impact of the demographics that WalMart, or any other (similar) retailer, employs and serves. He fails to understand, regardless of cost, the "switching costs" to migrate from publicly funded healthcare to privately funded healthcare may prove to be insurmountable to many of their associates. Notwithstanding, even IF WalMart were to offer an equal or similar healthcare package as Medicaid, the “switching costs” will still remain too high in relation to the incentive to switch (i.e., given that everything is equal, what is the incentive for these people to switch?). Does he, or any other critic, expect WalMart to run a miniaturized version of Medicaid? Or solve the national healthcare crisis? That is inane!
He states that associates who earn $17,500 could face $2,500 out of pocket expenses (14.3%); however, he does not specify how much of this would be derived from deductibles, non-covered services and prescriptions but leaves it for the reader to infer, assume it is a cost WalMart should have covered when in fact it could be related costs not covered by any insurance. High healthcare costs are something everyone faces, poor and rich alike. I would venture to guess that as incomes climb so does the amount of money spent on healthcare (I seriously doubt there is a $2,500 cap) because patients are more likely to demand more services, tests and medications and doctors are all too often more than happy to oblige.
Additionally, he takes out of context the issue of emergency room usage—which I am sure if he researched it thoroughly, he would find it was endemic in many companies which have low emergency room deductibles. Again, this behaviour reflects the demographics, high "switching costs", and the median education of the average associate, as well as the convenience the American society has become used to. Not to mention, that there is no disincentive not to use the emergency rooms, at least from the insured’s standpoint. That might explain why many insurance companies now carry high emergency room deductibles if the patient is not admitted, yet one way to defray the skyrocketing prices of healthcare.
Also taken out of context and omitting important things like statistics, are his quotes about the health of WalMart associates relative to the national population. I can wish I could write garbage like that, be well paid and not get sued.
And what is wrong with associates exercising on the job? Gee pushing a cart is really hard work! No one says Target is stupid (or brutal) for having its employees do exercise (it's amusing to watch).
From my experiences, it is not unusual for large corporations to offer several benefits packages, each tailored to specific demographics. Needs across the different demographics vary due to many variables, many well outside the control of WalMart. DOH!
His opening paragraph is one from someone who has OBVIOUSLY never worked in the retail industry and grasped the economics of such. Increasing part-time employees, having a set ratio of full-time to part-time employees is NOT a new strategy, nor is weeding out less productive workers, particularly senior ones. That is just business strategy and planning, or, maybe just common sense in action. Unbeknownst to him, WalMart is a business and not a not-for-profit charity organization.
He then goes on to take the comment about productivity in light of tenure out of context and shows a complete lack of understanding of what frequently goes on in a retail setting. What he describes may be attributed to poor lower level management or uninspired lower level management (as may be the case) or even lack of incentive (complacency); however, to correlate tenure directly with lower productivity is borderline ludicrous – save in the case of tenured professors that cannot be fired except for gross misconduct (that is for another time). His lack of fundamental understanding of tenure and the hierarchical dynamics within the retail setting is clearly demonstrated throughout the article. (I have experienced this all too often. I am sure through benchmarking and trending many interesting patterns will be revealed in regards to productivity which correlated to attitude and overall health.)
I could go on and dissect the entire article to demonstrate over and over his lack of situation awareness, perspective, and context; however, that is not the point of this blog, but rather raise public consciousness so that every consumer does not fall prey to sensationalistic reporting.
There are other “scandals” which have tarnished WalMart’s image; the immigrant one comes to mind. However, not so much in defense, but in explanation of, WalMart’s action, it is the consumer that drives the market, demand vs. supply, not the other way around (usually, generally). Consumers demand and expect goods, both basic and luxury, at bargain prices; however, they decry WalMart’s actions, both intentional and unintentional, to deliver the expected goods. They ignore and/or do not understand that there are many variables that affect pricing (e.g., competition, operating costs, etc.). Consumers, for the most part, do not realize their actions have fueled current business practices and furthered globalization on an even grander scale. There is an old saying:
Why is it that when WalMart came to the aid of the
It seems so much focus was giving the consumers rock-bottom prices through a lean mean supply chain; yet, somewhere along the line the key component of making this happen, human capital, was left on a shelf to gather dust, it was not developed in tandem with the technological innovations. Stale and disinclined management, from the top to the bottom, was isolated from the technology that was supposed to differentiate it from the KMarts, Targets out there. Yet this is not visible to the average consumer. The declining appeal of the stores, the HR scandals, the health insurance issues are visible to the average customer.
I’m not defending WalMart’s actions but instead calling for focus and action by both WalMart and the communities it serves instead of the constant blameshifting and headgames that is currently going on. It is of great disservice to all. WalMart is not the cause of or even major contributor to our troubled healthcare system but yet another symtom of it that is not going to go away with fancy PR or impassioned and inflammatory talk by their critics.
I am waiting for WalMart (and other companies in similar situations) to bring their HR practices in line with their technological innovations; however, I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
After reading the blog "The Pressure Cooker at Homeland Security" (Early Warning) by William Arkin posted on 19 September 2005 at 0730 ET (The Washington Post: Online Edition), I am convinced their (web) editors are either:
a.) Out to lunch
b.) Are not doing their jobs
c.) Want to compete with "The Enquirer" for sensationalism
d.) Don’t care
e.) Don’t know; don't bother to check the "facts"
f.) All of the above
Based on Mr. Arkin's purported background (i.e., a former Army intelligence analyst and consultant"), I cannot fathom his general ignorance, either intentional or unintentional, of rudimentary chemistry and/or physics. Here are a couple links about pressure cookers, one written by a high school kid doing a science project:
How to use a pressure cooker!
Boiling Oil Bomb
Fertilizer Pressure Cooker Bombs
If you do a search on pressure cooker bombs, you will find many well documented incidents of people making and using pressure cooker bombs. These bombs are a step, a large step, up from the dry ice "bombs" we used to make in the lab as a joke to wake sleeping coworkers up.
NOTE: Do not try this as it is a health hazard, particularly in large volumes!
The Washington Post is quickly becoming more and more like those flashy tabloids at the checkout stands. I'll bet Catherine Graham is turning in her grave! I wish I could say something redeeming about Mr. Arkin; but, alas, I must say somewhere down the line the taxpayers wasted their money educating and employing him.
Everyone complains about how disorganized the FEMA response was to Hurricane Katrina and they complain about how much money taxpayers pay to explore such situations (e.g., terrorists, natural disasters, etc...). As the old saying goes, "You can't have your cake and eat it too!"
If people took time to assess and understand what is going on, they would realize that there was a breakdown in communication, a breakdown in the process, having the information but not knowing what to do with it, and, admittedly, poor choices made in appointments, organizations and planning, or lack thereof. There is a commercial that goes something like this, "I don't even know enough to know I don't know." If we knew everything, we wouldn't need these reports Mr. Arkin mentions, much less people to do them. No one has all the answers, not even Mr. Arkin.
Lastly, Mr. Arkin may think he's raising awareness, but he's just spreading his ignorance, his narrow-mindedness, backing his writing up with subjectivity instead of cold hard facts, instead of supporting his contentions with empirical data. He's playing the blame game, with little or no intention of proposing, much less finding, any resolutions/solutions to current security issues
"There are just so many warnings about so many areas covering so much of the day-to-day life of
That's exactly what the terrorists are counting on. Way to go Mr. Arkin!
Here are two pictures: one of a man-made disaster, one of a natural disaster. Yet, both pictures tell the same story.
"Two Good Reasons for Homeland Security"
I was going to tell you the story (as any good muse would) but I think I'd like to hear your story-first. What are our options (i.e., immediate, short term, long term, who is in control of these options, etc....)? What are the opportunities (i.e., social, economic, educational, technological, government, etc.....)? Only caveat is whatever story you tell has to tie into the title provided above. Don't worry about grammar or spelling. I'll see what I get and maybe I'll write a compilation of sorts... What do you think? Happy writing!
Perhaps you were wondering why this blog is called "options and opportunities"... So, now having time to sit down and not worry about anything, I can tell you.
Options: Something you are given and have the choice to exercise.
Opportunities: Something you see, seize with the prospect of benefiting from.
Perhaps, this seems like a play on words, the nuances lost in semantics. Yet, the key difference is who is in control of what and when! Although options are nice, sometimes very nice, I would much prefer having opportunities because they are not as limiting as options. I have included the definitions of both words at the end of this post (pulled from www.dictionary.com); however, the definitions are not the focus of this post but rather the impact of these words. So here goes!
Although in a business setting options are often equated with incentives, inducements, they are still limited in their scope either in amount, time frame, terms and are often contingent on a separate, but not always wholly independent event (such as recruitment). A very common option in business is stock options. At the outset this seems great but as you delve further into the option, it becomes apparent that it is contingent on several factors such as: employment (both initial and continuing), vesting periods, and actually having enough monies to exercise these options! Keep in mind, options are something given to you by someone else, a someone else who gives these to you, to control the situation, to control you, your choices, to limit your choices! Although it might feel pretty good to have outrageously great options, they are nevertheless are what the person gives based on what the market will bear, on what the entity/person thinks you are worth and don't involve much risk taking by the person taking them (in the whole scheme of things)! Although options are a fact of business life, why run life in a series of options? Why be at the mercy of someone else's plans, whims and moods?
Opportunities on the other hand, are only as limited as the person siezing them! Capitalizing on opportunities often leads to other opportunities previously not seen, not available. Siezing opportunities often entails meeting new people, forming new networks, and reaching beyond your comfort level (i.e., growing as a person!). Siezing opportunities often means weighing risks and taking chances. Siezing opportunities often separates true collegues from fair weather ones, from ones who are or have become complacent in their current job. Siezing opportunities often separates fair weather friends from true friends (shows you who believes in you and who doesn't!). Although siezing opportunities may lead to failure (and even dismal failure at that), the upside is that success is so sweet in so many arenas. The key success is personal growth! (Stop shaking your heads! You were waiting for me to say financial success! But think about this, if you don't believe in yourself, grow as a person, how will you get others to believe in you, enough to go along with you, support you in your venture?) There is the obvious financial and professional successes, gains. Aside from the aforementioned, the most striking success is how many more opportunities this will make available. Some people call this fortuitous, propitious; however, I would like to believe that this is what they call being the master of your destiny (sorry for this old worn out cliche!). Interesting enough, siezing opportunities often allows you to give options to others!
So, now armed with these thoughts, which side would you rather have? Options? Opportunities? Have you noticed that each word has been coloured throughout this post? I made options red because you really need to be careful not to get lulled into complacency, not to become a sheep, a blind follower, to stop and weigh the long term consequences of taking the options. I made opportunities green because their is so much potential in so many arenas available to those who are bold enough to sieze them! So are you are you a follower (options) or leader (opportunities)?
op·tion