Category: Business

The New Economic Reality of Unemployment


Hiring Gap A couple of weeks ago New York Magazine used  The Hiring Gap chart (see picture) as their Intelligencer topic.  It compares domestic employment powers of ten "most valuable" ( in terms of their market capitalization) public companies in America in 1964 (converted into 2011 dollars) and now.  Even though the numbers on their own are very striking and Andre Tartar's few-lines of commentaries and footnotes cut right through the fact that 

"being a top American business no longer… means employing lots of American workers,"

the data left my calculating mind somewhat unsatisfied; it begged for further interpretation.

First of all,  it's the damned "market capitalization" crap, which nothing more than a perceived value of the company by investing public – the very same public that cannot evaluate companies on its own and follows the leads of their brokers, WSJ analysts, CNBC (especially if they are doled out by sexy Maria Bartiromo or engaging Jim "Mad Money" Cramer), etc.  Thankfully, there is an instrument we can employ to make these numbers somewhat more real – Price-Earnings Ratio:

  PE Ration Here is the new ranking of the 2011 listing, based on the companies' earnings.

  The Hiring Gap Only three giants retained their places in this modified view: Exxon, Berkshire and Google.  And, by my standards, those three are overpriced anyway: any stock with P/E ratio higher than 11 is overpriced.  Google with 20 – ridiculous.  Of course, it's not as bad as some other stocks, like Wynn Resorts, for a example, with a preposterous 60.  It always shocked me that people buy stocks like that and then act all surprised when their savings go, "Bye-bye." 

Another interesting angle of the chart is its reflection of the fundamental changes in industrial mix of Large-Cap companies, which speaks volumes about this country's economic and social environment.  The only two companies present on both lists are GE and IBM.  In 1964 we did not have any financial institutions big enough to claim not just one, but two spots in the top 10.  The three tangible goods manufacturers that drove the US to its economic dominance in the 60s are gone off the list – GM, Dupont and Kodak.  So, is the telecommunication super-power of the time – AT&T.  Now, we have Apple and Microsoft, dividing the world into two camps of PC vs. Mac users.  And isn't it comforting to know that as far as our OIL-dependence is concerned, we are still at the same point as we were nearly half a century ago?

Now, the focal point of the piece – the dwindling number of the jobs infused by these companies into American economy.  In accordance with proper statistical rules, let's explain away the two companies with the highest and the lowest number of workers.  Walmart employs 2.1 million of people, but it is irrelevant, and not because their average salary rate is one of the lowest in the country, but because their expansion put out of business smaller chains and thousands of independent retailers.  Google, on the other hand, generates the majority of its revenue without any human participation, so I am surprised even by the 24K number.

Look at our beacons of stability, though – GE's number practically did not change and IBM employs nearly three times more people now than they did 47 years ago.  Holla to that!  The rest of them… well, we all know the story – there are three reasons for jobs going away and never coming back:

  1. Technological advancements contributing into increased efficiency.
  2. Outsourcing = jobs going abroad.
  3. Globalization of manufacturing and support services = jobs going abroad.   

At the time this issue of New York Magazine came out, the unemployment rate was at 8.8%.   Now it's 9%, and I believe that unless something changes fundamentally in our economic structure, it is only going to get worse.  The new reality is that we cannot look at the giants whose operations financed through their publicly-traded stocks as the source of new jobs.  

As long as investors listen to analysts' opinions and follow the "trends," the large companies' executives will continue applying their hardest efforts to minimization of costs in order to preserve their multi-million compensation packages.  The workload will continue being exported abroad and jobs will disappear.

At this point, we can only rely on small and midsize American business for the influx of new jobs.  That's where the efforts must be concentrated: helping the existing smaller companies' survival and stimulating creation of new entrepreneurial businesses.

Those who read this blog consistently know that I am developing a product that will help small and midsize businesses in their daily struggle for success, assuming I manage to solicit sufficient venture capital.

How to Read People Through Their Communication Styles


If you are a business executive, CFOs and Controllers included, you cannot avoid the necessity of being able to grasp people's motivations based on external behavioral indicators.  Every person we encounter has his own hidden agendas and incentives, which we must decipher in order to be successful.  I previously talked about the effect people's priorities have on their attitudes (see Priorities and Attitudes).  It is a proven fact that humans' motivations can be read from the way they move, talk, look at you, even from the poses they strike. 

Filmmakers frequently speak about the subtext.  One of the basic rules of screenwriting is "show, don't explain."  Some theorists attribute the importance of this aspect to the visual nature of cinematic art. But the truth is exactly opposite: the ability to read subtext is natural.  This is what makes a movie believable and real to the audience: people watch an actor perform (especially, if he is a good actor) and pick up on the little clues of the character's inner-workings, because this is what we do in real life too.  

Subconsciously, we are all capable of recognizing particular body movements and voice intonations as expressions of motivations and intents.  The trick is to find this innate ability in yourself, isolate it, bring it into the prefrontal cortex, perfect it and use it to your advantage.  Start by observing people's communication styles – the fastest way to identify their intentions, to read into their primary concerns.

When people speak in a staccato style and quickly move from one subject on to the next one, what can we tell about their intentions?  Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they are determined to minimize the time consumption of every task they undertake or direct, that they driven by desire of accomplishment?

On the other hand, someone who apologizes for expressing his opinion three times within the same sentence and asks to be corrected if he makes mistakes, obviously is striving for amicability.  The ones who wait for your cues or keep quiet all the time are obviously unsure of themselves and don't want to be noticed.  Yet, if someone doesn't say anything, but flares his nostrils and drums his fingers on the desk, don't mistake him for anything else but the passive-aggressive about to explode.  And so on, and so forth.

So, let's go back to the movie-making.  Of course, I had a good reason to bring it up.  Films provide us with an enormous cache of visual references familiar to millions of people.  I have chosen a trailer for Mike Nichols's "Regarding Henry" to illustrate this topic because the 24-year-old screenwriter J. J. Abrams (yes, that very same J. J. Abrams who screwed us out of a satisfying "Lost" ending) used a dramatic turn in the plot that fundamentally affects the protagonist (played by the great Harrison Ford).  His life, attitude, tastes communication style- everything changes within the same movie.  It's a stark example of how a person's inner life affects his behavioral traits.

 

Donna Ballman’s Great Article on Workplace Rights


Those who visit my blog consistently probably remember my post The Distortion of Bill of Rights in Small Business and know that I frequently come back to the issues of an employee's freedoms and rights even in the pieces not related to to those topics directly.  I would like to draw the readers' attention to this great article by Donna Ballman written for AOL Jobs 10 Workplace Rights You Think You Have, But Don't. 

Ms. Ballman is an employment attorney, so unlike my insider's point of view, her perspective is independent and supported by legal expertise – really a must-read for everyone who confused their workplace for a democracy.

Case Study: The Marketing of Fear


In my consulting practice, I have a client who has a family-ran business.   It has been established several generations back.  He is doing well.  Yet, one of his sons wants to be an entrepreneur of his own stature.  He wants a complete independence – something I very much admire.  The young man has a pretty fascinating idea worthy of at least trying to attract venture capital.  Of course, he wants to do everything himself.   I know the boy for a really long time – when he embarked on figuring things out, I told him he could always count on my advice if he had any questions.

He came to me a few days ago, his model  clearly formulated and ready to be formalized in a business plan.  But he was all out of sorts about the business plan.  His original intent was to buy a PaloAlto's Business Plan Pro (still a #1 business plan software on the market) for $199.99 and work within its framework.  But then somebody told him that he can go cheaper and "easier" with a Growthink's Business Plan Template – only $97 for a pre-written, fill-in-the-blanks, Word document/Excel spreadsheets.  Excited, he went to look at the company's website and ended up having a panic attack.

I went to see for myself what could possibly spook him like that.  Let me tell you right away that I have nothing against Growthink, a 10-year-old consulting company, specializing in business planning and investment brokerage.  They appear to be quite successful in their core business of charging high-rate fees to moneyed clients looking for more funds, expansion or exit strategies.

The thing is, though, that in their daze of success they also decided to "reach out" to the general public.  According to their Special Announcement, they

"regularly receive requests from entrepreneurs who want to hire Growthink but cannot afford our consulting fees. For this reason, we have developed a business plan template that allows entrepreneurs to quickly and cost-effectively develop professional plans."

How about that?  They charge their conventional clients tens of thousands of dollars for their services, but here it is – for $97 you can have exactly the same thing.  Well, that's nothing new.  Consumer beware!

What caused the young entrepreneur to go into a frenzied mode was something else – it was the brutal, fear-fueling tactics that Growthink uses to market their side products.  I don't know how they talk to their conventional clients, but their online lingo is nearly unethical.

You take a vulnerable group of people setting off on a scary quest of entrepreneurship and you tell them,  "You don't know anything.  We are the only ones who know all the secrets.  Here, we tell you 4 out of 10 things you must know and then you will have to buy more products to know the rest.  If you don't do it you are doomed.   Here is another set of products with secrets from Venture Capitalists that were revealed only to us.  Everybody else do it wrong and so will you, if you don't buy this," etc, etc.  And it all enhanced with a rapid-speed audio. 

By the time they are finished talking, the poor young entrepreneur feels he MUST SPEND $1,200, or there is no hope for him.  And all he wanted to do is to spend two hundred bucks on the best business plan software on the market.      

The funny thing is that the template has only three reviews.  Do you think that the $1 billion of venture capital, Growthink claims their clients raised, was attracted by a ready-made generic template?  I don't think so.  Plus, if you are a creative person, capable of original brilliant idea, would you really want fill in the blanks and have somebody else's words expressing your aspirations?                 

Job Search: Lessons from AOL Resume Contest


Not that my stories are usually bright and sunny, but in this case I feel obligated to apologize in advance for the accentuated feeling of gloominess the visitors may experience reading this post.   This particular topic is depressing on three levels. 

First of all, it deals with the fact that there are millions of well-qualified people out there, who are classified as "long-term unemployed." 

Secondly, it highlights the problem of plunging work quality we can see everywhere.  I am not saying everyone, but it seems like the majority of people  just don't want to try hard anymore.  

Thirdly, it disparages our illusions about the impact of "internet exposure."  Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) and web-powered Social Networking are even more popular mantras nowadays, than Dashboards.  Everybody and their mothers are writing about it.  People believe that if they get their name on a high-traffic site, they are going to be noticed.  The reality is that unless you write about sex, celebrities or electronic chachkis, nobody will care.  And before you bring up Huffington Post, let me tell you – Arianna Huffington was a political powerhouse and a decent memoirist way before she went on the net. 

So, here is the story.  In January AOL Jobs announced a Resume Contest and offered job seekers to submit their CVs and photos.  The winners were "to be selected by AOL Jobs career experts."  The incentive to participate was boldly formulated:

"Each winner will have their resume featured on AOL.com for millions of prospective employers to see..."  

AOL Jobs never revealed their traffic information to support this claim of tremendous exposure.  But of course, people are desperately unemployed and ready to grasp at straws; plus, the internet exposure illusion…  Resumes were entered into the contest.

Here comes the funny part.  Afterwards, the organizers did not even bother to announce how many resumes were submitted.  Like, it did not even matter.  However, in addition to the original 12 winners,  AOL Jobs announced 24 runner-ups, claiming that "there were so many amazing… entrants" (no actual numbers).

I happened to know personally one of these runner-ups.  Guess when these poor saps were featured on AOL Jobs…  The first group on Saturday, January 29th, at 7:57 AM, and the second group on Sunday, January 30th, at 4:42 PM.  Who was looking?  Recruiters?  Employers?  None of these 36 winners got any job offers through this "wonderful" campaign.

The personally -known-to-me winner did not receive a single phone call or an email.  Well, that did not really surprise me.  What shocked me was that nobody from AOL cared to follow up with her.  There were no emails asking if she got any leads, nothing…  Weren't organizers interested at all in the results?  As I say – low quality of work everywhere.   

So, I have a constructive suggestion, which at the very least will have a quality-improving effect.   How about, AOL Job's management actually pursues their "Employing America" mission and replaces the incapable staff, who developed this failed contest, with some excellent winners of the Resume Contest?