Category: Social & Political Issues

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.

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.

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?

Objectivism, Part 2: Lynn Tilton – the Matriarch of Patriarch


Jessica Pressler provided the second mentioning of Ayn Rand, in her long-titled article What Does it Take For a Female Tycoon to Get Noticed Around Here? , which she contributed to New York magazine's issue on the post-crash Wall Street.  It profiles Patriarch Partners' CEO Lynn Tilton and, according to the author, this is how the powerhouse of private equity investment sees herself: as "an Ayn Rand heroine in six-inch heels."

Rightfully so.  This woman is not simply concerned with the state of American capitalism and the future that awaits us ("…I believe that there will… be violence in the streets in America," she says.  "And I think the only thing we can do to stop it is by creating employment."), but she is actually doing something about it – working very hard on trying to rebuild American manufacturing.  Moreover, she is doing that without any regard for the conventions of the phony propriety that has saturated our existence. 

Lynn Tilton destroys the stereotype of a "powerful man" as a world-savior.  A true standard-buster,  just like Ayn Rand wanted women to be, she does not make herself look like the androgynous creatures in buttoned-down suits who are allowed to enter "little boys" clubs from time to time.  She does not let herself to fit into the designated for business tycoons box either.  She refuses to hide her wealth into over-priced art rubbish other billionaires stash in their unseen drawing rooms.  Her conspicuous consumption is honest, because that should not define her.  It has nothing to do with her achievements.  

It is incredibly important to me that Ms. Tilton's  business focus lies in the same field as mine does: the proverbial backbone of the US economy – small and midsize companies.  And it makes the refusal of others to look beyond the outfits, the hair, the jewelry, the mannerism, far more painful.   Once again I am exposed to the violation of my personal absolute truth – MERIT.

Why can't people break out of their constricted mentalities? 

At art fund raising minglings, when I dissect a movie or a play, impressed people, who are paid to be in the know of those things, inevitably ask what I do for living.  I just love seeing their faces when I say, "Accounting and finance."  You see, number-crunchers are not expected to understand the high art.  It does not matter that I know more about it than they do.  On the other hand, when I was entering Economics PhD program, my wild jewfro was diminishing my scientific credibility, even though I came with 50% of my research and modeling already completed. 

Always those fucking labels, those stupid boxes.

I can easily visualize Lynn Tilton going to Harry Winston or Van Cleef & Arpels for some fabulous $250,000 necklace and people in attendance there thinking that she is some mogul's wife.  She must relish the opportunity to tell them, "I am the mogul, bitches!"

It's too bad that Ms. Tilton deals only in private equity acquisitions of distressed businesses and does not diversify into venture capital start-up investments.  I am developing a product right now that has a great potential of contributing into survival of smaller companies and complementing her quest for preserving the true capitalism.  I think we would get along handsomely.  We both know that it's what's inside your head that counts.  She is having trouble getting the respect she deserves, because we lost our meritocracy to "club membership" long time ago.    

Objectivism, Part 1: Maureen Dowd on Ayn Rand


It does not happen very frequently that you encounter mentioning of Ayn Rand and objectivism twice during your weekend reading of periodicals.  Even though the ideas and ideals of the diminutive woman, who produced such monumental works as Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged seem to be getting renewed attention in the last six years or so, they usually call for multi-page discussions.

Ah, but the first reference came from the master of economic writing – The New York Times Op-Ed columnist Maureen Dowd in her Atlas Without Angelina piece.

I am a big fan of Maureen Dowd's journalism.  Her subtle sarcasm and amused curiosity mixed with political seriousness and broad intellectualism appeal to me in such a way that, when I read her column, it seems that I chat to a like-minded friend. As someone who has been in pursuit of knowledge in diverse areas of life, I appreciate Ms. Dowd's multi-faceted erudition.  Those who read this blog know that I use every chance to connect cultural and professional themes in my posts.    

In the April 16th column, timed with the release of Atlas Shrugged Part I, Maureen Dowd used her ability to get right down to the core of issues and, in a few beautifully brief stabs gave their due to the Tea Party's confusion, to the perversity of government bailouts and to the degenerative state of our current economic system:    

"capitalism evolved into a vampire casino where you could bet against investments you sold to your clients, and make money off something you didn’t own or that existed only on paper"

Ms. Rand would be utterly terrified by all this.  As someone, who witnessed her farther, a hard-working pharmacist, being stripped of his possessions so that they could be distributed to "those in need," Alisa Rosenbaum (Rand's birth name) had a very personal relationship with ideas of unearned rewards. 

I always found Ms. Rand's philosophy intellectually liberating.  Unlike her faithful acolytes, I don't believe in blind literal acceptance and treat her teachings as a scientific methodology to be sensibly applied – like her notion of Ethical Egoism as a pursuit of self-interest without infringement of others' freedom.

As Tea Party's mis-interpretations show, this is one of the most misunderstood philosophical concepts.  Many people interpret it as refusing to do anything for others. That is not right.  As long as there is a self-interest embedded in the act, it's great to do things that benefit others. 

In my post Why Do I Work So Hard? , I explained that first and foremost I do it because it satisfies my personal work standards – that's my self-interest.  Of course, I have to get paid adequately for my work, but my pay doesn't affect the quality of my work.  And nobody should benefit from my efforts without giving something back to me. 

Real artists create because they cannot live any other way, whether they do or don't sell their work.  But they definitely don't do it for the sake of public.  And it would be most unfair to just take it away from them without any reward and give it to other people, because they arbitrary "need it."  It's as simple as that.  

The idea of absolute truths independent of human perception is a bit more contrived.  It is hard to find a concept that would not mean different thing for different people under different circumstances.  I think about it more in terms of freedom to select moral truths by an individual.  Ayn Rand herself named only one – REASON.   I have three:  LIBERTY  (both personal and economic), LOGIC and MERIT.  And that brings us to the second reference and Part 2.