Stats

Comments Posted By Abbyrose86

Displaying 691 To 720 Of 2,133 Comments

Wisconsin, what does it really mean?

Evidently it was retaliation!

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 5:33 pm

Good points. You have provided many great point…nothing is perfect and there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to curing ALL that ails our society, both socially and economically. There are many variables involved and humans do not possess the ability to be omniscient or omnipotent. Ergo, nothing man creates WILL be perfect or cure all issues, in addition every idea will come with ‘unintended consequences’ some that will be realized immediately and others that won’t show themselves until years later.

HOWEVER, that does not mean we should stop trying to come up with solutions, BUT maybe, just maybe, we should STOP trying to frame all arguments in absolutes or in black or white thinking, and recognize there are many shades of gray…that each must be addressed.

Perhaps, WE should stop looking for simple solutions and recognize our world is not all that simple.

There are many different reasons WHY people succeed financially and many different reasons that MOTIVATE people to pursue any particular outcome.

The only commonalities in ANYTHING that any human being does relate to IS what is needed for basic survival; WE all have basic needs…which are food, shelter, air, proper attire predicated on climate in which we live, companionship, and to expel waste. AFTER basic needs are met…motivations change.

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 5:31 pm

BTW…I love the idea of employee owned and operated businesses. I have done some research on the concept and I think it is good idea for some businesses.

The pyramid style organization is so 19th century!

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 5:24 pm

I feel the need to go on record as stating…I’m in management and I LOVE UNIONS!

I truly think they level the playing field and provide a balance in power structure in addition to making the WHOLE system work better.

They help solidify employee concepts and issues and make strategic planning easier, as they provide contracts with employees, which help BOTH management and employees realize their roles in the process.

As a business woman, I like contracts…it makes planning SO much easier! Less ambiguity.

Are they perfect? NO…but then again, what has man created that Is perfect? They have issues, JUST like any other organization that involves humans and human foibles.

However, I truly believe they make managing one’s business easy IF the contract is negotiated properly.

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 5:19 pm

Your anecdote provides so many good lessons for what is going on today.

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 5:12 pm

NO Molson or Labatt’s…are you kidding me?????????

I can’t even FATHOM the concept!

I’m a Labatt’s girl and when I was living in Connecticut I could NOT go to a bar and get a Blue!! I had to ‘settle’ for Molson. But to be with out either…UNCIVILIZED!

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 5:09 pm

ME TOO!!!

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 5:03 pm

I think we should take it a tad further…parents are a problem…BUT here is the caveat…if THEY were not raised properly or had not received an adequate education…THEY don’t know better either…so it’s a cycle.

I suggest it’s not just parents, teachers or unions…but rather our whole systems (including our socioeconomic system) and our society as a whole, that is causing much of these problems in education and in our society as whole.

I think it is time, to put away 18th and early 19th century concepts and come up with new ones that meet 21st century problems.

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

@PW…I like that idea….I like it very much. Talk about a good incentive system and a balanced one at that!

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 4:51 pm

I couldn’t agree more Cyrano. I have worked with Canadians for 21 years and have been in business with Canadian business men…they really don’t understand how it is down here.

I had an epiphany one day, when dealing with my Canadian benefactors…they use the same or similar words, but they attach slightly different meanings to those words than what we have down here.

It causes a disconnect when we are communicating…because what the word means HERE and what it means up there is slightly different.

We used to have so many petty arguments over different business concepts because quite honestly the words and the rules were slightly different down here…but they had a hard time seeing it that way.

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 4:48 pm

I truly don’t think it’s about money for the likes of the Koch brothers…it’s about power…and having the power of Kings and Emperors. Money is just the means to their extreme power.

THEY want it all, so that they can dictate how the world works.

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 4:45 pm

Indeed. They walk away with their golden parachutes after literally ruining the companies, because the incentives in place, make it worth their while.

It’s sick!

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 4:43 pm

So true.

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 11:43 am

I am so glad you brought this up on this thread Cher…and it actually goes back to what I was talking about in my thread from yesterday about incentives.

As you just said:

“But when, as a CEO, your only responsibility is to make the biggest profit possible (or be fired) than you cannot expect them to do what’s best for their workers.” THAT is the incentive structure that I was referring to….incentives or MOTIVATIONS behind an action are what is what leads to the outcome of that action.

Since the incentives or MOTIVATIONS for CEO’s is such that only profit AND their personal economic benefits are at the HEART of our current business philosophy and THAT THEY are forever gauging their performance based on the short term stock prices, the INCENTIVE structure in this process is what causes the bad behavior of CEO’s and corporations.

ERGO why unions and collective bargaining are necessary…they create the BALANCE in the system to keep the appropriate checks and balances…so that one side does NOT become heavier than the other…which IS exactly what happened since the Unions have lost power (see Reagan) and Supply side economics…which took the balance out of the one side the middle class) and placed it all on the other side (the elite) of the teeter totter.

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 11:41 am

Balancing Incentives…

I took such a course myself…and i thought it hogwash…as at the SAME time, I was taking a business theory course, a human psychology course AND both a macro and micro economics course.
I was a full time student AND majoring in business theory and economics.

The ideas in the one class contradicted those of the other courses.

I think the courses that suggest that ASSUME that the proper economic incentives ( a LIVING WAGE) are being paid and thus ASSUME that since the IMMEDIATE needs of working are MET that pay isn’t the only motivator. I also suggest those same courses are working for the benefit of the corporate hieracrchy and not the individual…because those same gurus often argue that those at top positions ( executive management) MUST be paid in the millions in order to ‘attract the best and brightest’.

I suggest there is a disconnect somewhere and those in HR are being fed a line of bull in an effort to make those at the bottom stay in their place.

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 7:15 pm

THAT is my biggest complaint with Obama…his economic team.

There are so many great macroeconomic minds out there…Stiglitz, Galbraith, Krugman…among others…yet those he chose were not in their league in terms of academic accolades or prominence in their field. WHY?

THAT has bothered me…is it because it doesn’t want better advisement or is it because he CAN’T (for other reasons) chose better advisers?

Stiglitz, was fired from the World bank for attempting to tell the truth about some of the problems inherent in our world wide economic policies.

Krugman is considered a ‘leftist’ and has been heavily criticized by those on the far right, including some VERY powerful elite people.

Jamie Galbraith has received the same beating in the press and in public opinion…even though he is the son of John Galbraith…who was widely esteemed.

It seems that some REALLY good economists who have a REAL understanding of macro economic principles are being derided in favor of some who’s ideas are less than honest…WHY?

Who and what is behind this? Something doesn’t pass the smell test…AND while I understand economics is NOT an exact science…because after all it is a SOCIAL science, that as the name implies is not just science, but also encompasses motivational theory, human behavior and social behavior….those who have a more liberal viewpoint on economic policy have been ignored…even though their views and theories have just as much merit as those who are more ‘conservative’ yet aren’t receiving the positions or airplay in ANY forum or administration…why is that?

Something is amiss.

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 6:48 pm

I’m sorry Sboston…I’m very passionate about this subject and I don’t disagree the problem is BIGGER than just incentives…but this to me is a ‘chicken or egg’ debate.

I do agree, we aren’t anywhere near solving any of our REAL problems anytime in the near future. 🙂

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 6:26 pm

Woof, your last comment and you and your hubbies experiences says a lot!

More so than all the analytical babble!

Externalities, being in the right place at the right time (ergo luck) and a host of other factors ALL play a part in how things turn out.

Your example is a perfect illustration of that…and fortunately WE get it.. but why don’t so many others not understand how all these factors COMBINE to make success happen and not just one factor or the other?

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 11:33 am

Amazing!

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 11:30 am

I SO wish I can watch the series…but the speakers on my computer are shot!

I bet it is interesting to watch.

so what is the question he asks????

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 11:27 am

As a student of economics, I can assure you INCENTIVES have ALWAYS been a part of economic theory, free market theory and business theory.

If you look back at the work of Adam Smith, you will see he talks about it too…sometimes though the words used are not the same and I think that adds to the confusion. I think the word Incentives has been co-opted to mean different things than what it should be.

As professor Stiglitz said ALL economists agree that incentives matter. Perhaps the mistake being made, by me and others is using the ‘term’ incentives to discuss the concept of what MOTIVATES people to action. That is what the term incentives actually means, but I think most people assume it means something else…such as compensation packages, which don’t get me wrong is a part of it.

I agree with you that our system of economics and allocating resources is an utter mess! But as Stiglitz theorizes, it’s because the incentives or MOTIVATIONS are wrong…which in turn causes the whole system to be a mess.

So what you are suggesting DOES go back to motivational incentives. INCENTIVES don’t just mean compensation or parties or whatever…incentives are the REASON why people do things….call it motivations if you will.

The desire to simply focus on return on investment, is a form of motivation based on incentives. THAT is what he is talking about when he says that our system has lost its focus as the incentive structure is what is a mess, which causes people to do things to attain those incentives which are NOT positive for the economy as a whole.

Look at what you yourself just wrote…you are talking about incentives when you discuss ROI…the motivation for the investment is the economic return (the incentive).

I think maybe some are misinterpreting the message here.

Let’s look at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, as well as other business theorist such as Victor V’room, Henri Fayol, Max Weber and others who have studied motivational business theory since the beginning of the 20th century.

They all make valid cases as to what motivation causes to effect. Maslow suggests that unless basic NEEDS are met, such as food, shelter, clothing…no other need with be focused upon. So the motivation or the incentive to work, is based on need for self survival…food and shelter.

I can go on at length on the theories of the others but it would get boring and redundant.

Incentives are the basis behind motivational theory concepts and in turn are the basis behind Economic theory as well.

What motivates or incentivizes people to work towards an outcome? THAT is what is being referred to when talking about incentives in this context.

I hope I helped clarify my point! 🙂

While I agree that MOTIVATIONS of the elite and the masses are different. Their motivation and thus the incentives attached are NOT about money anymore, it’s about POWER, absolute power.

HE who has all the gold, makes all the rules. Their motivation or incentives are not monetary in nature…whereas for the masses, who still need the basics for survival…money or enough money to provide for a basic life and to THRIVE is the most motivating factor!

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 11:20 am

I love your last paragraph…BRAVO!

THAT Is so true!

I can imagine how demoralizing that was, and unfortunately those at the top probably didn’t get why morale sank. The way that many companies treat their rank and file employees is often disgraceful…with donuts and pizza parties…its condescending. PEOPLE work for money…the is the most important motivator AFTER that comes the other stuff.

I we look at Maslow and his theory of the hierarchy of needs, which I personally believe has much merit, if you don’t have the basics met, the other stuff doesn’t matter.

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 20, 2011 @ 9:24 am

No, I haven’t seen it…

It’s funny but I thought about that myself when I was in the corporate world…I’ve worked for a few in my day and YES they were full fledged sociopaths.

It was hell.

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 19, 2011 @ 11:23 pm

They also need to be paid appropriately for the job their doing and their contribution to the company’s success. THAT needs to be addressed FIRST before the other items come into play.

While they need to be feel in control and have a vested interest in their actual work, they also need to have the proper economic interest.

I always say if you are only willing to pay someone $10 an hour with 3% raises every year, don’t be surprised if that is ALL they give you in return, even IF you provide all the other bells and whistles. At the end of the day, that person still has to pay to have a roof over their head and food on the table and THAT is the main reason they are working.

If they all won the lottery tomorrow…80% would call in rich the next day, regardless of how many of the other things were provided.

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 19, 2011 @ 11:20 pm

You know what always cracks me up about these how to motivate employees seminars and books, courses, etc…is they always try to PRETEND like actual financial compensation isn’t that much of a factor in how employees perform…I say that is all bullshit.

MOST people do not work because they love working…they work for money and for financial reasons. To pretend otherwise is ludicrous. ONCE the financial aspect is properly secured THAN the other things come into play…but if you aren’t paying your employees enough, where they are worried about how to keep a roof over their head and food on the table, they really aren’t going to care too much about the other stuff.

Especially because on the TOP end of the company pyramid, they claim just the opposite, that money matters….well guess what geniuses, it matters at ALL levels, not just the top and offer proper incentives in terms of compensation packages is necessary at all levels of the pyramid.

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 19, 2011 @ 11:15 pm

Ah shucks…thanks KB!

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 19, 2011 @ 11:07 pm

That was good article..thanks.

I suggest it is even simpler than what he suggest…pay them appropriately for the work they do as part of the success of the organization, provide long term economic incentives (such as profit sharing, paid yearly) and stock options. AND here is the big one…treat employees like HUMAN beings and with respect. Take their suggestions for improvement SERIOUSLY. Don’t treat employees like children, train them appropriately and communicate with them like adults.

And for goodness sake, HIRE appropriately those who will fit in with the culture of the company, don’t just use generic flavors of the day hiring techniques and silly background checks and credit checks that don’t prove shit!

All the other psychological mumbo jumbo is really unneccessary if you treat people well and go by the golden rule. “Treat others as you wish to be treated”

Don’t manipulate them, don’t blow smoke up their ass and don’t underpay and oh provide adequate vacation time and health benefits as well as retirement.

So simple really

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 19, 2011 @ 11:06 pm

If you take a look at the links from Professor Stiglitz, you will see that he builds quite a case for how incentives and the wrong incentives are really at the root cause of much of our ills…they aren’t the only cause of course, but they are a major consideration, of this ALL economists agree.

Incentives matter and are at the root of motivational theory. Proper incentives are key.

Incentives can be good or bad, dependent on how they are offered and for what they are offered. Consequences must accompany them as well.

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 19, 2011 @ 11:00 pm

Sorry PW…I misunderstood! 🙂

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 19, 2011 @ 10:57 pm

Oh, he was shocked, all right…just befuddled…what a world…what a world! 🙂

» Posted By Abbyrose86 On February 19, 2011 @ 10:56 pm