Night Light

Let Jimmy Durante Tell Ya: Give a Man a Job

Here's a video of Jimmy Durante during another economic crisis, encouraging Americans to fight unemployment.  With economic indicators the way they are, we'll probably be dipping into those 30's-era cultural archives more and more.

The "NRA" in question is not that of the late Charlton Heston, of course.  It's the National Recovery Administration, created by FDR to heal a recovering economy with common-sense interventions (which would be called radical socialism today).  Hmm ...

Whether or not any American has the guts and smarts to look to FDR for inspiration, let's hope the days of viewing job-slashing execs like "Chainsaw Jack" Welch as business heroes are gone for good.  Employers of America, do what Jimmy sez!

(Video clip courtesy of Calculated Risk, who points out that the second guy Jimmy talks to is Moe from the Three Stooges)

Consumer Confidence “Skyrockets” - to Mediocre

Wingers are crowing about today’s headlines, courtesy of a press corps that’s never willing to do its research and always willing to spin for the GOP.  "Consumer confidence zoomed," writes lazy AP reporter Jeannine Aversa in a typical piece - one that the WaPo entitles "Consumer confidence skyrockets."  Other outlets are using "surge" or other verbs.

The headlines are based on a relatively new measurement, the RBC "CASH" Index.  It’s a based on a survey of 1,001 people.  Consumer confidence did rise significantly over August, but the outlook then was decidedly bleak. 

Here’s what the cheerleaders are missing:  The RBC CASH Index has only been around since 2002, so it has only measured the varying levels of discouragement consumers have been feeling since Bush took office. There’s no baseline against actual "good times," from the consumers’ point of view.

The CASH Index is also published by the Royal Bank of Canada, which sells investment-related products in the US.   It could be argued that a rosy economic scenario is good for their business, and therefore that they're not entirely unbiased.   To be fair, however, Ipsos is a good polling firm and there's no reason to suspect the RBC Index's integrity.  The fact that it has only existed since Bush took office is the most salient fact the media's overlooked in its interpretation of this story.

A better longer-term yardstick is the Consumer Confidence Index published by the University of Michigan.  That was also  published today - and roundly ignored by your hard-working media.  What did it say? 

"The … preliminary index of consumer sentiment increased to 84.4 from 82 in August. The measure has averaged 88.1 since monthly data were first compiled in 1978."

In other words, consumer confidence "surged" and "skyrocketed" - to something slightly less than average for the last 18 years.

But then, that’s been the performance standard for the Republicans for quite some time now.  They’ve been so ineffective and unsuccessful on so many fronts that a "surge" to mediocrity is definitely something to crow about.  This could be their motto:  "We don’t completely suck at everything.  In some areas we’re only slightly below average."

Music Industry - Revolution Now!

If you love music and have any business sense, the music industry can be depressing - as a new lawsuit confirms. New technology has the power to revitalize the music economy, create channels for buying hard-to-get music, and open our culture up once again to the unusual voices that once revolutionized music - and society - while helping the business boom.

The whole economic pie could become bigger by bringing underserved music markets back into the marketplace. Instead, music execs are being defensive and reactionary, attacking new technology rather than embracing its opportunities. The result? Less for everybody.

The industry's latest reactionary move is a  lawsuit against Pioneer's "Inno" portable receiver, which can record XM satellite radio broadcasts so that subscribers can listen at their convenience. Unlike, say, cassette recorders, the Inno is a shining gift for record companies, in that:

1. The songs are "locked" in the device. They can't be duplicated, or played on any other machine.

2. The songs are "tagged" digitally. Listeners can flag the tunes they want to buy and then purchase them electronically. (And while there's still controversy about it, surveys have shown that people who download music actually purchase more music than others.)

        3. XM is paying roughly 7% of its gross revenues in music royalties.

Here's what the execs behind this lawsuit are missing:

1. The more money XM makes, the more money they make. (And these days, they need new revenue sources desperately.)

2. If you can't record satellite radio, far fewer people will subscribe. (This also applies to Sirius Radio, where I'll be co-hosting The Young Turks this Monday from 3-6 pm West Coast time.   Please forgive the shameless self-promotion.)

3. Not only does recordability increase XM's revenues -- and therefore the music industry's - but the diehard fans who record music shows are also the same people who will use that "tagging" feature to buy more music. Surveys have tended to confirm that.

This could be the start of a beautiful friendship. Why is the music industry so loathe to share a bigger pie with other distribution outlets, rather than continue its futile attempt to own 100% of a dwindling one?

Don't get me wrong:  I'm against illegal downloading.  I was once a working musician, and many of my friends still are.  And I'm a business person.  People who create and distribute the art should get paid. 

The question is, what's the best way to make that happen?  There are some working models out there.  Here are two:

Bush, Rumsfeld Use Failed Execs' Ploy – Mass Military Layoffs

In a story that's been overlooked by the major media, the failed management team of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld Inc. is laying off nearly 900 Air Force lieutenants - while the country is publicly at war in Iraq, secretly at war in Iran, and claiming to fight a worldwide "war on terror." It's the classic last resort of floundering executives - show how tough you are by laying off employees, no matter how badly they may be needed.

The USAF is making the cuts from among the 2,100 lieutenants commissioned in 2002 and 2003. Writes Stars and Stripes:

The Air Force wants to cut nearly 900 lieutenants from the force due to an officer surplus that personnel experts attribute partly to high retention spurned by a weak economy and burgeoning patriotism after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Wait. "Officer surplus"? Wasn't this supposed to be the modernized, streamlined military created by Don Rumsfeld's visionary brain? Won't that lean, mean fighting machine need a higher officer-to-enlisted personnel ratio than before? And isn't the Air Force a key part of that high-tech "vision" that "The Decider" claims is Rumsfeld's strength?

Let's face facts: It's been clear for a long time that Rumsfeld - despite his much-vaunted "private sector" experience - is a terrible executive. His half-baked vision of military reform is typical of "leaders" who, as he did at Monsanto, get their jobs through political connections and not because of management skill or technical competence. (That's how his boss, Bush, got his job too.)

Weak execs like Rumsfeld usually fall victim to the vapid and highfalutin b.s. of overpaid consultants, the kind Rummy no doubt used to come up with his flakey vision of "streamlining" - a vision that helped lead to the chaos and ruin of the Iraq war.

Most business people have seen it all: the politically-connected manager gets a job thanks to his relationship with the boss, who often (as in this case) got the job himself through family connections. The misplaced and weak executive (in this case, Rumsfeld) lets consultants concoct wacky theories. The experienced professionals suffer through the exec's tirades ("You just don't get it!" Rumsfeld would scream at the generals) as he weakens the entire organization with his erratic leadership and nutty organizational schemes.

Then, as everybody begins to realize what a poor manager he is, he decides to prove himself by engaging in a round of layoffs. "I'm not afraid to make the tough decisions," he boasts.

That's why I've changed my mind on Rumsfeld. At first I thought he didn't matter. Why all the fuss about Rummy and not Bush? Why change monkeys if you're keeping the organ grinder?

But now I see it: The military belongs to us all. We need that organization, from its generals to its lieutenants and its enlisted personnel. Rather than fire them, we could send 900 lieutenants to work with a peacekeeping force in Darfur.

Sure, Rumsfeld is a reflection of "the Decider's" incompetence. His bad decisions are also his boss's decisions. But the military is too important to let an incompetent manager ruin it.

Keep the lieutenants. Fire Rumsfeld.

(A Progressive Executive post)

The Massachusetts Healthcare Mirage

All the signs suggest that the new Massachusetts healthcare bill is far less than meets the eye. Democrats, liberals, and business interests have been too quick to praise an act that appears to punish the "little guy' while leaving the big guys untouched. Mandating health care coverage doesn't solve the problem of the uninsured any more than mandating home ownership ends vagrancy, and this bill's likely to do far more for politicians than it will for the state's uninsured.

I've done a lot of professional work in healthcare analysis - in domestic and international public policy, as well as for insurers and employers - so, as they say in hip-hop, you're in my house now. The bill's architects (if a ramshackle creation like this one deserves the "architecture" label) have failed to consider the fact that healthcare, at more than 15% of the GDP, is an economy in and of itself - and an economy is first and foremost a system. It has interlocking parts, and when one moves the others are all affected.

thinking outside the ...

close de' box*

Via Mr. Sun,  a challenge to come up with new slogans to replace that well-worn cliche, "thinking outside the box."  My suggestions, based on years of forced attendance at corporate training sessions: 

• Smokin' some  primo talcum.   
• Being a random word generator.   
• Using up the airspace so no other idiot gets to talk.   
• Desperately trying to think of something before I have to finish this sentence.   
• Matriculating at the University of Me.   
• Thinking outside the unemployment office.
  

Extra points if you caught the Kurt Cobain reference - the picture, of course, is of a "heart shaped box." (You remember: Hey, wait, I got a real complaint ... St. Cobain could be bitchy, too, as evidenced by his description of plump rival rocker Billy Corgan as a "pear shaped box.")

*You get even more extra points if you get the reference in the caption.

UPDATE:  Give up on that caption reference?  Go here.

THE PROGRESSIVE EXECUTIVE

I've recently started a new category of post entitled "The Progressive Executive."  These posts deal with business and business-related matters from, as you might expect, a basically progressive perspective. My credentials:  I've spent 30 years in the business world - as an entrepreneur, an analyst and management consultant, a senior corporate executive, and a CEO.   I've tried with varying degrees of success to remain committed to the ideals that motivated me as a young guitar-playing "dissident" (as we were called in those days).

A business career was thrust upon me by circumstances at first, as I faced fatherhood for the first time and realized I couldn't feed a family on my music income.  Then, I began to realize I enjoyed it and had an affinity for it.  Like many of my generation, I struggled with what seemed to be a disconnect between my values and my work - a disconnect that I no longer believe is necessary or inevitable.

the living wage: the times gets one right

When I read this headline in the New York Times Magazine - "Is How Much You Pay Workers a Moral Issue?" - I got out my knives and started sharpening.     I was getting ready to lacerate them and was writing my opening paragraph in my head:  "Ask child laborers or sweatshop workers whether it's a moral issue."   Or course it's a moral issue.

Instead of moral cowardice framed as journalistic neutrality, what I found when I read Jon Gertner's piece was a thoughtful, balanced, and insightful piece on the "living wage" issue.  I'm strongly on one side of the argument:  I believe that economic research has proven that raising the minimum wage is good for workers and for business.   

But instead of false neutrality, what I found in Gertner's piece was legitimate balance and objectivity, plus a lot of good information people can use to make up their own minds.   I'll need to read it again with more care, but my first impression was positive.  I'm glad they're covering this issue.

Check it out.

the trillion-dollar mistake

Even if you can ignore the tragedy of lost Iraqi and American lives - which no moral person should be able to do - can somebody tell us what we are getting in return for the war that's worth $1 - 2 trillion?

Management 101:  When you spend the organization's money, you better be able to show a return on investment.     We've gotten more terrorists, unsecured or lost radiological materials, an Iraqi population that opposes us (45% support armed anti-American action), 180+ dead in the last two days, and a pro-Iranian Islamic fundamentalist government.

On the plus side, we've gotten ... what, again?

cronyism and the business of government

The recess appointment of Julie Myers and other friends, relatives, and assorted cronies is a good illustration of how this Administration works: The former CEO's shallow and cynical son has inherited his Dad's job, and is running the enterprise into the ground with the complicity of his friends. Don't believe the hype: the GOP isn't the party of good management.

I've been there. As an executive and a consultant, I've seen the wreckage that substandard leaders and their unqualified appointees leave behind. When the new manager walks into to his or her first staff meeting and starts spouting self-important nonsense, the most knowledgeable and experienced employees will exchange exasperated glances.

As the new boss keeps generating uninformed opinions and intrusive memos, the best and the brightest will start looking for new jobs - ones where they can do what they were trained to do. From there, it's only a matter of time before the department deteriorates and the organization's mission is compromised - perhaps fatally.