kids

Huffington Post…

Rigid, closed-minded, overbearing — just some of the words sometimes used to describe Post50s in the workplace. Entitled, lazy, self-absorbed — equally harsh words used to describe some young employees. It’s no surprise. Generational conflicts have always been present in the office. Put a group of strangers together from differing generations, ask them to work side-by-side for eight or more hours each day, and you’re bound to have some tension. But experts say baby boomers and Generation Y, in particular, have clashing values and views of the world. According to a 2011 poll by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), as reported by Business Insider : Forty-seven percent of younger workers complained that older managers were resistant to change and had a tendency to micromanage. About 33 percent of older respondents griped that younger workers informality, need for supervision, and lack of respect for authority were problematic. Those age 65 and older now exceed 35 million in the United States. They represent the heart of today’s management. At the same time, though, a recent survey found that about 20 percent of midlevel corporate employees now report to a boss who is younger than they are, CNNMoney reports . As Baby Boomers delay retirement and work until older ages, it is more likely they will have a younger boss. So how do boomers cope when workplace conflict heats up? The Huffington Post asked that question to author and human resource management consultant Dr. Linda Gravett, whose area of expertise is leveraging workplace diversity. “Many boomers are not coping well. I’ve had so many boomers say to me, I’m not going to learn how to text, I want to talk to someone face-to-face doggone it and I’m going to track them down till I find them face-to-face,” she said. “I say, have to learn that if you want to communicate with people across all age groups then learn how to text, learn how to instant message, get out of your comfort zone and your rigidity that every kind of communication must be either by letter or email or even face to face because that isn’t necessarily practical.” Here are Gravett’s eight tips for boomers to bridge the generation gap at work:

Read more from the original source:
8 Ways To Bridge The Generation Gap At Work

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

WATCH: Hug-A-Gator Opens In Florida

by on November 1, 2011

Huffington Post…

Hug it out, Florida. Visitors to the Tin City district of Naples can now “Hug & Hold an Alligator” with the city’s resident reptile expert, Mike “Gatorman” Sturgill . For just $5, tourists and their kids will snuggle up with Baby Bobby , a five-year-old alligator weighing approximately 35-pounds, or any of Sturgill’s smaller and somewhat cuddly gators. Opening wasn’t all kisses and hugs , though. PETA and other animal rights groups voiced opposition to the business, particularly the practice of muzzling the reptiles’ mouths closed. But with the City Council’s approval — and insistence of a $1 million liability insurance plan — Mike is now open for business. And so far, the alligator entrepreneur seems optimistic. “First day in Tin City and we got a few hugs in already today,” the “Gatorman” said . “They’re smarter than people realize and they love their hugs contrary to what people believe. When you hug this guy he melts right into you because he likes that body heat.”

Read more here:
WATCH: Hug-A-Gator Opens In Florida

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

Senate Approves Obama’s Nominee For Commerce Department

October 21, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Senate voted Thursday to approve President Barack Obama’s nomination of former utility executive John Bryson to head the Commerce Department, easily overcoming conservatives’ objections that his pro-environmental views made him unsuited for the job. The chamber’s 74-26 vote came five months after Obama chose the former head of Edison International, the holding company that owns Southern California Edison, to head the agency. Bryson has also served on boards of major corporations including the Boeing Co. and the Walt Disney Co. Twenty-one Republicans joined all 51 Democrats and two independents in backing Bryson, while 26 Republicans voted no. Bryson’s nomination had become entangled in the dispute between Obama and Republicans over free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama when some GOP lawmakers said they would block his approval until the president sent those pacts to Congress. The House and Senate approved those pacts last week. Since Obama announced his choice of Bryson, unemployment has been stuck at around 9.1 percent and the public mood about the economy has been gloomy – a dangerous combination for the president and his party with Election Day for control of the White House and Congress barely more than a year off. “At such a critical time for our economy, I nominated John because I believe his decades of experience both in the public and private sector have given him a clear understanding of what it takes to put America on a stronger economic footing and create jobs,” Obama said in a written statement after the vote. “I’m confident he will help us do that.” Bryson, 68, was a co-founder four decades ago of the Natural Resources Defense Council and has supported cap-and-trade legislation, which would set an overall cap on pollution and allow companies to buy and sell the right to produce emissions. Many conservatives oppose the proposal, saying it adds costs to businesses. The selection of Bryson shows that Obama “has no intention of backing down on his job-killing war on affordable energy,” said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., one of Bryson’s fiercest opponents. Inhofe called the Natural Resources Defense Council “one of the most radical, left-wing, extreme environmental groups.” Bryson won solid backing from Democrats like Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., who praised his business background at a time of 9.1 percent unemployment and said, “We need all the good people we can get.” Bryson also won support from some more moderate Republicans like John McCain of Arizona, whom Obama defeated in the 2008 presidential race. “Elections do have consequences,” said McCain. He said he wouldn’t have nominated Bryson, but said senators should not block presidents from appointing top cabinet officials except for rare occasions “when that individual is not fit to serve.” “I don’t think you could really question Mr. Bryson’s credentials and background,” McCain said. Bryson was supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, which applauded his business background. He will succeed Gary Locke, who left to become ambassador to China.

Read the full article →

Walmart Warehouse Under Investigation By California Labor Officials

October 14, 2011

WASHINGTON — Investigators in California have discovered numerous labor law violations at a massive warehouse handling Walmart goods, according to state officials. At the warehouse in Riverside County, Calif., operated by Walmart contractor Schneider Logistics, inspectors with the state labor department found that two of the temporary staffing agencies who supply manual labor have not been keeping track of how much money workers are owed. One firm, Impact Logistics, Inc., was issued a $499,000 fine for not providing itemized wage statements to the workers who unload and load products at the facility. The company was also issued a warning for failing to maintain time records, and another staffing agency, Premier Warehousing Ventures, was issued a similar warning. There are around 200 workers at the warehouse. Impact Logistics did not return a phone call seeking comment. Jim Pittman, chief operating officer of Premier, said the company plans on proving that it was actually in full compliance with the law. “My employees mean the world to me,” Pittman said. “It is our intent to abide by all of the labor laws whether it be in California or the other states we work in.” None of the workers in the warehouse are employed directly by Walmart, but labor department officials said the products inside were bound for Walmart stores. Dan Fogleman, a Walmart spokesman, said the company has reached out to Schneider to assess the situation. “This facility is run by a third party, and this is an issue involving some of their subcontractors,” Fogleman said. “Although we’re not involved in this matter, the contracts we have in place with third parties require that they follow the law, and that’s something we fully expect.” State Labor Commissioner Julie A. Su told HuffPost that many workers were not given proper pay stubs, and it appears that some may not have been paid for all the time they worked. Although many workers have already been interviewed on-site and off, she said the agency will be carrying out a fuller investigation in the coming weeks. Su added that the layers of subcontracting in warehouse work can make it difficult to enforce labor law. “Certainly that’s one of the challenges,” she said. “Warehouses are one example of the ever-increasing contracting out of labor. It’s difficult for enforcement, and in many instances it’s a deliberate effort to avoid compliance.” Wage and safety complaints are not uncommon in American warehouses. The Morning Call recently chronicled the sweatshop-like conditions for workers toiling in an Amazon distribution center in Pennsylvania. Workers there said the supervisors refused to open bay doors citing the possibility of employee theft, and the warehouse grew so hot on some days that ambulances waited outside at the ready to treat workers for heat exhaustion. Schneider, the Walmart contractor, was not cited in the California inspection, since the workers are employed directly by the labor staffing agencies and not by the warehouse company. A Schneider spokeswoman told HuffPost in a statement that the company has cooperated with the investigation: “We expect the agencies we work with to comply with all California and federal labor laws. We believe that we are in full compliance with applicable laws and regulations. We expect our vendors to fulfill their responsibilities as well.” The Riverside facility is one in a massive network of warehouses in California’s Inland Empire region. Many of the facilities receive clothing, electronics and other dry goods coming from China that are bound for retail stores throughout the United States. Some of the country’s biggest retailers use warehouses in the area, but workers in the warehouses are often employed through layers of subcontracting, blurring the lines of accountability. Sheheryar Kaoosji, research and policy director at the worker advocacy group Warehouse Workers United, told HuffPost that the allegations against the temp companies operating in the Riverside facility are common in Inland Empire warehouses. He said the mostly Latino workers are often hired on a temporary basis and end up earning around the minimum wage. Temp workers are more vulnerable to alleged abuses than direct hires, he said, and many of them are paid according to a confusing piece-rate schedule. “Workers don’t know how much they’re being paid — they’re not showed on their paychecks,” Kaoosji said. “Five or six years ago, there was a higher percentage of direct hires. That’s been slowly eroding. Every year there are more people employed through the agency.” In addition to the Riverside facility, Schneider Logistics operates an extensive Walmart distribution center outside Chicago, Ill. Earlier this year, workers at that facility filed a class-action lawsuit against Schneider accusing the company of violating labor laws. At the time, Robert Hines, who has worked on a temporary basis in Chicago-area warehouses for years, told HuffPost that he wasn’t compensated for what was often grueling work in the Schneider-operated facility. “I noticed after a couple of weeks that my checks didn’t match my hours,” said Hines, who claims he was shorted on overtime as well. “People are breaking their backs, trying to feed their families and be right.” Citing the California case, Su said that without proper pay stubs it can be impossible for a worker to know whether or not he’s been paid appropriately. “In this industry and others like it, this example makes it very clear that the failure to provide a wage statement is part and parcel of an effort to exploit workers,” she said.

Read the full article →

Low Home Prices Mean It’s Cheaper To Buy Than To Rent In Many Cities

August 16, 2011

As the national real estate slump deepens, home prices in many cities have crossed a worrisome milestone. It’s cheaper to buy a home than to rent one in 74 percent of the country’s largest 50 cities, according to the real estate site Trulia — findings that confirm the national epidemic of depressed housing prices remains in full swing. Trulia’s research, which compared the median list price and median rent for two-bedroom apartments, condos and townhomes in America’s 50 largest cities, found that renting is more expensive than buying in dozens of markets, particularly in Miami and Las Vegas, as well as Mesa, New Mexico, and Arlington, Texas. In a minority of cities, including New York, Seattle, Kansas City and San Francisco, it’s still more expensive to buy than to rent. A spate of recent studies have shown that home prices remain low throughout the U.S. Earlier this month, the real-estate company Zillow reported that average prices were down 6.2 percent from a year before , and aren’t expected to touch bottom until 2012. Data from CoreLogic and Case-Shiller showed similar declines between 2010 and 2011. Low home prices are seen as delaying a recovery in the housing market, and by extension a turnaround in the broader national economy. When home values are low, homeowner wealth sinks accordingly, and many consumers end up spending less money than they might in a more prosperous market. Meanwhile, prospective homebuyers are more likely to delay a purchase if they believe prices will continue to fall. On Tuesday, figures from the Commerce Department showed that construction on new homes fell 1.5 percent in July — not as sharp a decline as economists had expected, but still an indication that the housing sector is far from rehabilitated. A number of forces stand in the way of a housing recovery, including high unemployment, falling wages and a growing inclination among homeowners to save for retirement, rather than try to upgrade to a better house. Last month, Morgan Stanley released data showing that the U.S. home-ownership rate is only 59.7 percent if delinquent borrowers are excluded from the count — an all-time low, and one that may herald a nationwide shift toward becoming a “rentership society” instead of an ownership society, a Morgan Stanley strategist said at the time.

Read the full article →

Lisa Earle McLeod: How to Win the Hearts and Minds of Other People

August 15, 2011

How do you get people excited and engaged? Traditional wisdom says that you have to show people what’s in it for them if you want them to join your team, support your cause, work long hours or buy your product. Traditional wisdom is wrong. The secret to getting people engaged isn’t about showing them why it’s good for them. It’s the exact opposite. It’s about providing people with a purpose that’s bigger than they are. Social science research is proving what we already know in our hearts to be true: People are willing to work harder for a cause they believe in than they are for individual rewards. That’s why soldiers face death rather than abandon their unit. It’s why parents sacrifice to send their kids to college. It’s why in 2001 employees at Southwest airlines, including the CEO, took pay cuts rather let anyone go. Southwest “cut pay rather than people” and kept their enthusiasm in tact. Their motto, “Not Just a Career, a Cause” wasn’t a meaningless platitude. It was a living breathing thing beating inside the heart of every employee. We’ve long bought into the myth that people are only out for their own self-interest. That’s total bunk. People are desperate to be part of something that’s bigger than themselves. That’s why I spent $54 a pair buying my daughters and me canvass slip-on shoes from Toms. We watched the video on www.Toms.com . When I learned that for every pair purchased, Toms gives a pair of new shoes to a child in need, I couldn’t get my Amex out fast enough. I could have bought similar shoes for half that price at Wal-Mart, but I wanted to be part of the Toms “One for One™ Movement.” But you don’t need a video of your employees hand-placing new shoes on a little girl’s feet in Rwanda to motivate your team. If you want to win the hearts and minds of your customers, your colleagues, or even your family, you need to provide them with three things: People need to know what to do. They need to know how to do it. And they need to know why they’re doing it. What and how engage people’s minds. But it’s the why that captures their hearts. Here’s an example: One of our clients provides IT services to small businesses. That’s what they do. How they do it is via computer consulting services, products and support. But here’s the why — They’re committed to helping small businesses grow. “We sell IT services” is nice. But compare that to: “Small business is the backbone of America. Our job is to eliminate the IT hassles so small business owners can achieve their dreams.” Which one makes you want to get out of bed? The first statement is internally focused; the second statement provides a larger external purpose. A compelling “why” is how I survived as a working mother with a husband who traveled. When our kids were little and I was exhausted, I always reminded myself, “I’m raising the future President of the United States and her Secretary of State.” It sounds hokey, but it inspired me to do my best because I knew the world was counting on me. The reason people focus on their own self-interest is because we haven’t given them anything better to care about. Real leadership isn’t about appealing to self-interest. Real leadership is bringing people together around a purpose that’s bigger than they are. Business strategist Lisa Earle McLeod specializes in sales force and leadership development. A sought after speaker, she is author of The Triangle of Truth, a Washington Post Top 5 Business Book. Download free tips on www.TriangleofTruth.com

Read the full article →

Jason Alderman: Back to School Budgeting Tips

August 11, 2011

The days when you could send your kids off to the first day of school with a lunchbox and a hug are long gone. Today’s back-to-school preparations likely include filing out piles of pre-enrollment paperwork, lining up carpools and, of course, the dreaded shopping excursions for clothes and school supplies. If you’re new to this game or simply need a refresher course, here are a few suggestions that can help you save time, money and sanity: Get organized. Keep a file with letters, emails and notes sent home from your kid’s school for things like registration requirements, report cards, permission slips, required vaccinations, school policies (absence, illness, discipline, etc.), contact information for teachers, aides and classmates’ parents, etc. Find out if the school has a website, online calendar or email list you can sign up for. Also, create a family master calendar noting registration deadlines, school holidays, vacations and field trips, doctors’ appointments, your work events, carpool schedules, parent/teacher meetings, athletic and arts events, parties, etc. Back-to-school shopping . By the time they’ve bought new clothes, classroom supplies and paid for extracurricular activities, many parents will end up spending several hundred dollars per child. Unless you’ve been setting money aside all year (which you really should), you’ll need to determine what you can afford to spend on school-related expenses without blowing your overall budget. Scoring bargains won’t help your bottom line if you end up paying interest on unpaid balances. Here are a few budgeting tips: Before you shop, make a comprehensive list for each child. Use previous years’ expenses as a guide and compare notes with other parents. Be transparent with your kids about the budgeting process, including how much money is available to spend. Get them involved in prioritizing expenses between “must-haves” and “nice-to-haves” as well as how to compromise: If they truly want those pricey jeans or new laptop, work together to figure out a way they can earn the price difference. As an added inducement to save money, agree that if you come in under budget, you’ll split the savings with them. Spread clothing purchases throughout the year so your kids don’t outgrow everything at once. Many stores hold fall clearance sales to make room for holiday merchandise. Although shopping online can save money, time and gas, don’t forget shipping and return costs, which could undo any net savings. If your kids are old enough, put them in charge of online comparison shopping. Review the school’s dress code so you don’t waste money on inappropriate clothing. Ask which school supplies you’re expected to buy. Go in with other families to take advantage of volume discounts and sales. Find out how much extracurricular activities (athletics, music, art, etc.) cost. Account for uniforms, membership dues, private lessons, field trips, snacks, etc. Rent or buy used sporting equipment or musical instruments until you’re sure they’ll stick with an activity. (Try PlayItAgainSports.com and similar outlets.) Factor in public transportation, school bus or carpool expenses. Learn what your school charges for meals and weigh their convenience (and nutritional value) against the cost of home-prepared lunches and snacks. Find out your school’s policy on immunizations and see what’s covered by your insurance — or which ones you can access free at health fairs or community clinics. Know when it’s important to spend more for higher quality. Cheaper notebook paper shouldn’t matter, but you shouldn’t risk buying poorly made shoes that might hamper proper physical development. Before buying new clothing or accessories, look for “gently used” items in the closets of your older kids, friends and neighbors, at garage sales, thrift and consignment stores, and at online sites like Craigslist . While you’re at it, sell or donate items you no longer need. Clip newspaper and online coupons. Many stores will match competitors’ prices even if their own items aren’t on sale. In addition, numerous consolidation websites post downloadable coupons and sale codes for online retailers, including: CouponCabin.com , CouponCode.com , CouponCraze.com , Dailyedeals.com , DealCoupon.com , DealHunting.com , Dealnews.com and MyBargainBuddy.com . Mobile shopping applications take online shopping to a whole new level by allowing in-store smartphone and mobile browser users to scan product barcodes and make on-the-spot price comparisons, read reviews, download coupons, buy products and more. Popular apps include Amazon’s Price Check , ShopSavvy , Yahoo!Shopping and PriceGrabber , with more rolling out all the time. Save on textbooks . Textbooks are one of the biggest expenses for college students, often costing hundreds of dollars a year. Fortunately, many alternatives to buying a new (or used) copy from the campus bookstore now exist. Websites like Chegg.com , CampusBookRentals.com , BookRenter.com and eCampus.com let you rent textbooks for the semester at a much lower cost, often with free shipping. In response, more and more campus bookstores have begun rental programs. Sites like Amazon and AbeBooks also carry many new and used textbooks at competitive prices. Many textbooks are now available in ebook form that you can download and read on your computer at a greatly reduced price. Several websites, including CampusBooks.com , Bigwords.com and AllBookstores.com let you comparison shop when buying multiple textbooks, as well as choose the best option among buying, renting and ebook for particular texts. A few cautions when ordering school textbooks: Whenever you buy or rent textbooks, always make sure you’re getting the edition with the correct ISBN (International Standard Book Number) for your course. If ordering online, be sure to factor shipping costs into the overall cost. Ask about return policies in case you decide to drop the course. Make sure the books can be delivered in time for the start of classes. Bottom line: Plan ahead for back-to-school season and you’ll save money, time and aggravation. This article is intended to provide general information and should not be considered legal, tax or financial advice. It’s always a good idea to consult a legal, tax or financial advisor for specific information on how certain laws apply to you and about your individual financial situation. To Follow Jason Alderman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PracticalMoney

Read the full article →

Tech Stock Crash: End Of The Bubble?

August 8, 2011

As the stock market continued a sharp slide on Monday, technology companies found themselves hammered particularly hard, with the Dow Jones U.S. Tech Index ending the day down 5.8 percent. For entrepreneurs and investors alike, the drop begged the question: Is this the beginning of the end of Tech Bubble 2.0 ? In particular, high-profile tech darlings saw significant declines in their stock prices: Pandora shares were down below their IPO price, while LinkedIn stock fell 17 percent. Faced with this, industry analysts were united in an assessment that the crash would have a negative impact on upcoming IPOs. Howard Lindzon, the CEO of StockTwits , told HuffPost, “This definitely hurts IPO prospects — it’s harder to get deals done when people are cranky. They are the first thing to be pulled.” And delayed IPOs would have a ripple effect, according to John Frankel, a partner at ff Venture Capital . “If there are delays in IPOs, companies cannot go public,” he said in an interview with HuffPost. “Meaning VCs are going to be returning money a little slower to their LPs [limited partners].” Mark G. Heesen, president of the National Venture Capital Association , told HuffPost that the market volatility might impact the venture capital industry in a number of ways. “Investors will flock to more conservative fields in uncertain periods,” he said. Given the “50-plus venture-backed companies now in IPO registration,” whose future is now in doubt, Heesen said, “none of this is good news and we will need to see a stabilization very quickly if we want to avoid long-term implications.” Frankel, for his part, felt that in the long run, the crash would not dampen the investment scene. “In the longer term, I don’t think it disrupts me one iota,” he said. “I’m still having meetings with companies, I’m still putting up funds. ” Any downturn would have to persist for several months, he explained, to have a tangible adverse effect on the startup landscape. Lindzon called the market slide a “necessary correction,” but rebuffed assertions that it signaled the bursting of any bubble. “Prices were getting a little silly,” he said. “But it wasn’t a bubble — no one owns these [companies].” Russell Hancock, the president and CEO of Joint Venture , an industry coalition, spoke with HuffPost regarding the prospects of a second bubble. He noted that the “hype and excess” of the late-’90s bubble was “not the case this time. Companies are behaving prudently, bringing genuine product and value — and investors recognize it.” If anything, he added, “tech stocks have been victimized” in the current slide. “They’re being pulled in. But [the sector] is as strong as it ever has been.” To some degree, analysts attributed the steep decline in tech stocks to the nature of the market in general. “Stocks always fall faster than they go up,” said Lindzon. “The fundamentals of tech leaders are better than ever — and those that are suffering have oodles of cash” — giving them strength in an uncertain market. For nervous entrepreneurs and jittery startups, Foundry Group’s managing director Brad Feld made what he termed a “public service announcement” on his website over the weekend. “Ignore the Dow and the stock market and get back to work on your business,” he wrote. “Over time, I’ve learned that none of the short term moves in the stock market matter at all in my life.”

Read the full article →

Bernanke Urges Lawmakers Not To ‘Just Cut, Cut, Cut’

July 13, 2011

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke urged American leaders not to cut spending too aggressively in the short term, warning that a sharp and quick response to the federal budget deficit could imperil the already weakening economic expansion. “We really don’t want to just cut, cut, cut,” Bernanke said Wednesday before the House Committee on Financial Services. “You need to be a little bit cautious about sharp cuts in the very near term because of the potential impact on the recovery. That doesn’t at all preclude — in fact, I believe it’s entirely consistent with — a longer-term program that will bring our budget into a sustainable position.” The chairman’s words, unusually strong for a man whose smallest utterances tend to move markets, appeared to undercut the arguments of some Republican lawmakers, who insist strenuous cutting is required to shrink the federal budget deficit. Overly swift reductions in federal spending could actually worsen the nation’s budget imbalance by weakening economic growth and dampening tax revenues, Bernanke suggested. Lawmakers in Washington are consumed by a struggle to reach a quick budget deal. Republicans have tied the debate over raising the debt ceiling to the debate over how to reduce the federal deficit, refusing to increase borrowing authority unless their demands for spending cuts are met. Economists, financiers and taxpayers the world over are watching the deliberations, with the U.S. government’s credit rating potentially at stake. The government will hit the debt ceiling by Aug. 2 if no deal is reached, the Treasury has said. But Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said he wants a deal even sooner , in the next several days. If no deal is struck and the borrowing limit isn’t raised, the government will be forced to abruptly reduce spending. That could mean halting Social Security payments, or pay to the military. And it could mean defaulting on the nation’s debt, an event without precedent in modern history that economists say would likely send interest rates soaring, induce job cuts and plunge the economy back into recession. But Bernanke warned against acting too hastily to reduce the federal deficit, appearing to echo earlier comments in which he said the debt ceiling was the “wrong tool” for repairing the nation’s budget. Spending cuts, if imposed in the short term, can have the unintended effect of hurting revenue by reducing the nation’s taxable income, he suggested. “I just want to be clear that cutting programs or raising taxes in ways that will reduce aggregate demand, spending and the ability of consumers to meet their bills and purchase goods and services is going to slow the economy,” the chairman said. “That’s in turn going to offset some of the benefits of the cuts,” he continued, “because it will reduce revenues and make the deficit worse on the short term.” Federal spending tends to increase demand in the economy by putting more dollars in people’s wallets, economists say. That spending might include tax incentives for businesses to hire workers, or aid for local governments to help fund projects that repair infrastructure and boost employment. Ideally, government spending yields results in excess of the value of the money spent. Higher employment fosters a general sense of confidence and optimism, which encourages more hiring and investment in a virtuous cycle. With the budget deficit widening and the debt running above $14.3 trillion, most lawmakers agree that spending must be reduced. But the timeline for these cuts, and the specific programs that will be affected, are a subject for contentious debate. The economy is hurting, with the unemployment rate at 9.2 percent, gas prices high and home prices continuing a punishing decline. Bernanke underscored these weaknesses in his testimony, arguing that any budget cutting must be handled with care, so as not to shatter the fragile economic recovery. Still, some lawmakers insist on immediate action. That view was summed up by Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.), who questioned Bernanke during the hearing. “Maybe this is a rhetorical question, but if we’re not going to cut now, I mean, when?” Duffy asked. “At what point is there going to be political courage to get the debt under control if we can’t do it today?” Bernanke resisted wading into a political debate. But on the debt ceiling issue, a case in which a political fight risks inflicting real economic damage, he was firm: The limit must be raised on time. “The right analogy for not raising the debt limit is going out and having a spending spree on your credit card, and then refusing to pay the bill,” he said. “We saw what happened in 2008, 2009, where we had two consecutive quarters of 6 percent negative growth in the economy. I think something on that order of magnitude would be certainly conceivable.”

Read the full article →

Green Jobs Can Bring Home Bigger Paychecks, Report Finds

July 13, 2011

Unemployment remains high. Fossil fuels are under increased scrutiny. Governments are looking to cut costs. These underwhelming realities have shifted America’s attention toward the employment potential of the green community. As local areas continue to ramp up their efforts to save energy, more metrics are becoming available on the people behind those initiatives. The Brookings Institute released a study on Wednesday, profiling a multitude of national and regional trends within the United States’ green workforce. Entitled “Sizing the Clean Economy,” the study found that 2.7 million workers hold professions that qualify as “clean.” Outside of that national figure, Brookings’ Metropolitan Policy Program dove into the local scene. The report compiles statistics for several metro areas, looking at factors such as the quantity of clean jobs, the growth rate at which cities are adding clean jobs, and the wages for employees holding those positions. Leading the way in terms of overall clean economy size was New York, with 152,034 green jobs. Newsday notes that the largest slice of that green pie was transportation, which accounted for nearly 40 percent of those employment positions. In cities like Denver, green jobs are bringing home bigger paychecks . Workers in clean-energy posts within the Mile High City are netting $47,602 in annual pay, which is almost $4,000 more than the medium wage for others working in Colorado’s capital. While the Brookings report notes that the green economy “remains an enigma,” these figures stand to be boosted by the Environmental Protection Agency’s new financial backing of green jobs. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson introduced that vision on Tuesday , which includes $6.2 million in development and training grants.

Read the full article →

Walmart Supreme Court Ruling Being Used By Wall Street

July 8, 2011

WILMINGTON (Tom Hals) – The U.S. Supreme Court’s dismissal of a massive sex-bias case against Wal-Mart Stores Inc may have handed Wall Street a new weapon in its battle against angry investors who lost billions on securitized home loans. At first glance, last month’s ruling in the Wal-Mart case may seem far removed from lawsuits over complex mortgage investments blamed for helping to trigger the global financial crisis in 2008. But attorneys are seizing on the Supreme Court decision as they fight to prevent pension fund investors from banding together as a class to pursue claims they were misled about bonds built from flimsy mortgages. In the Wal-Mart case, the Supreme Court on June 20 found that 1 million current and former female employees from 3,400 of the retailer’s stores had too little in common to form a class. The court’s language about issues of a “common question” could, according to attorneys arguing for the banks, also bar mortgage bond investors from suing en masse. Lawyers defending a unit of Washington Mutual argue that the “commonality” that was missing among the female Wal-Mart workers is also missing among investors in securitized mortgages, even when they invested in the same pool of loans. They made the argument in court papers filed on June 22 arguing against certifying a class of investor plaintiffs suing Washington Mutual. The case is pending in U.S. District Court in Seattle. If successful, the defense tactic could prevent investors in mortgage-backed securities from pooling their resources and bringing a case as a group. That could make it more difficult for them to pursue cases against big issuers of mortgage bonds, such as Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase & Co. The Washington Mutual legal team referred questions to JPMorgan, which bought the bank in 2008. JPMorgan did not immediately return a call for comment on Friday. CLASS SYSTEM The Wal-Mart case was closely watched and the ruling is expected to make it tougher to bring class-action cases, which are often used in drug and product liability lawsuits and have led to mammoth settlements with consumers or shareholders. The Supreme Court decision steers courts away from certifying broad classes of plaintiffs while leaving the door open to breaking out sub-classes later, said James Cox, a professor at Duke University Law School. In the mortgage market, banks securitized home loans by collecting large pools of mortgages and placing them with a trust. The trust then issued bonds cut into “tranches,” each carrying a different credit rating. The higher-rated tranches were paid first from the money flowing from homeowners. Courts already have denied class status to investors who sued on behalf of all others who bought bonds issued by different trusts that were set up by a particular bank or mortgage company, such as Countrywide Financial. The Supreme Court’s Wal-Mart decision may help narrow the class scope further, separating tranches within a particular loan pool trust. In their court papers, Washington Mutual lawyers cite the Wal-Mart decision for their argument that each tranche of the mortgage-backed security needs to be analyzed separately to determine which loans back which tranche, and whether those loans were properly written. “Even if plaintiffs seek to ask the same question across all loan groups and all securities, unless they can be assured of getting the same answer, no class can be certified,” the court filing says. The Wal-Mart ruling is the first case cited in Washington Mutual’s argument. The company’s lawyers also cite the decision to make their point that each tranche must be evaluated separately, not lumped together merely because they have common legal claims, according to the court papers. Thomas Hatch, an attorney who has brought mortgage-backed securities cases but is not involved in the Washington Mutual lawsuit, said courts are right to narrow classes to a single trust, but he disagreed with cutting to the tranche level. “The defendants are wrong in claiming you have to be in the same tranche to be in the same class,” said Hatch, because those various slices of the bond rely on the same offering document. “It isn’t tranche specific, it is trust specific.” The Seattle federal court will take up the Washington Mutual class certification issue on July 27. The case is In re Washington Mutual Mortgage Backed Securities Litigation; U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, No. 09-00037 (Editing by Martha Graybow, Gary Hill) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Hedge Fund Manager Pays Back Trading Violation With Penalty

July 8, 2011

BOSTON – Former hedge fund manager Forrest Fontana, who once worked for industry titan Steven A. Cohen’s SAC Capital Advisors, will pay nearly $1 million to resolve claims that he violated a short-selling rule, the Securities and Exchange Commission said on Friday. Financial regulators charged that Fontana, whose Boston-based Fontana Capital LLC traded mostly in financial stocks, helped his investors earn unlawful profits of about $816,184 by having participated in public offerings after having shorted the same securities. According to the government Fontana violated Rule 105 of Regulation M, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said in an order imposing sanctions and a cease and desist order. Fontana broke the rule on three occasions between July 2008 through November 2008 with trades on XL Group PLC, Merrill Lynch, and Wells Fargo, the SEC said. He will now pay a disgorgement of $816,184, prejudgment interest of $3,606 and a civil penalty of $165,000 to the United States Treasury, the SEC said. Fontana’s lawyer was not immediately available for comment. The SEC has brought a number of these types of cases in the last months and only last week settled a similar matter with hedge fund Level Global, which has been embroiled in the government’s insider trading case. Fontana launched his own business in Boston in 2005 with $50 million in start-up capital from his former SAC boss, Cohen, and quickly generated buzz in the local investment community. But by 2010, he was effectively out of business, managing no funds for clients and concentrating on his work as one of five selectmen in the town of Winchester, north of Boston. (Reporting by Svea Herbst-Bayliss) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Danna Harman: Party Over in Greece

July 8, 2011

Politics in Greece is all about the ruling families, they say here. The vast majority of the country’s leadership, from whichever party, has grown up in the same expensive neighborhoods, gone to the same exclusive schools, partied on the same boats and married into the same families. Their kids are friends, their parents are friends, their wives go to the same hairdresser. “And don’t forget to write that almost none of them have been out in the real job market,” says businessman Panayotis Kapsiotis, sipping a late night raspberry mojito by the pool as the DJ spins. “They would have trouble running a corner kiosk,” he notes, not really joking. Kapsiotis is at a high school reunion of sorts, as one of his old classmates from Athens College celebrates the christening of a baby daughter at his elegant Kifissia suburban home, together with the whole gang of friends from 20 years ago. The men embrace each other warmly. The women, many of whom are pregnant, wear expensive designer shoes, their heels sinking slightly into the garden grounds. A valet is parking cars outside. Waiters come around with mini souvlakis. And children run amok even though it’s long past midnight. One of Europe’s most elite high schools, Athens College was founded by opposition leader Antonis Samaras’ great grandfather. And it is where both Samaras and current prime minister George Papandreou (following in the footsteps of his father Andreas Papandreou, three time prime minister and the son, himself, of another prime minister) went to school. After high school, incidentally, the two men, one year apart, each set off for America, to get their BAs — both to Amherst, a small liberal arts college where the future political rivals were actually roommates. But Athens College high school is where it starts. It’s the sort of place that, year after year, turns out just this sort of early summer party scene: Attractive. Confident. Affluent. Expectant. Powerful. Secure. But is that what it really is today? “This is just a façade nowadays,” confines Kapsiotis, his glance skimming the crowded garden. “Sure, most everyone here still has their jobs, as well as savings, and families that can help out, and in some cases a whose dynasty of power behind them — but don’t mistake any of that for a future.” Today, as bankrupt Greece teeters on the verge of a very public breakdown, Greeks from across the political and class spectrums — rich and poor alike — are belatedly shaking their heads and incredulously asking “How did this happen?” “What went so wrong?” *** “The problem starts with exactly those elites. It is they who are to blame — both the politicians and their businessmen classmates,” says George Stampolidis, a naval officer, protesting outside the Greek parliament in downtown Syntagma square, some 20 kilometers and a world away from the affluent Kifissia. “They created a culture of corruption so deep here that now we are all drowning in it. And Greece, with close to 345 billion Euros in debts, is indeed drowning. Last week, in the face of tens of thousands of angry and violent protestors, plummeting popularity, and the fact that the reforms undo almost everything his party has stood for in the past — Papandreou passed new drastic austerity measures, promising to shave off 28.3 billion euros in cuts by 2015. To do this, he has said he intends to cut salaries and social benefits, including pensions and unemployment aid, raise taxes on even those earning minimum wage and sell off state-assets and government services — for starters. This, mind, at time of recession and unemployment of 16 percent in the country. The measures are meant to ensure that the country gets a promised 12 billion euros in aid, the fifth portion of an original 110 billion-euro bailout package that it signed last year by the “troika” — the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund — to prevent the country from defaulting on its debts. Concerned that if Greece were to default — or seen to be in default — it would mean massive losses for all the banks that hold Greek debt as well as begin a domino effect that could threaten all of Europe, the troika has encouraged what they see as a responsible austerity plan. It was an “important step forward.” European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and European Council President Herman Van Rompuy said in a joint statement. At home though, it’s seen differently. As many as 80% of Greeks oppose the new austerity measures, and there are naysayers even within Papandreou’s own PASOK party. Forty-seven people were injured and at least 14 arrested last week as they violently tried to make this point of opposition, protest strikes shut down the country for two full days, and demonstrations continue now. ** “Crooks! Crooks!” shout the masses outside Parliament, thrusting their spread out palms towards the building in a sign of disrespect, and flashing green flashlights into the eyes of the police and the journalists — who protestors see as part of the establishment- filming them from the windows of the nearby luxury Grand Bretagne hotel. Banners read: “Crooks: We will find and get you,” and “Change the constitution.” “We will not pay one penny to our corrupt government so they can feed the blood thirsty Germans who want our islands,” says one protestor named Elias, giving vent to one of the many conspiracy theories making the rounds in Greece. “The Swedes and Norwegians are cutting deals with our politicians to all steal our billions in oil,” says another, named Antonio, sketchy on details of which Norwegians and Swedes and which oil. In the square below, a protest tent city similar to the one that sprouted up recently in Spain’s Puerta Del Sol, has come to life in recent weeks. “Politics is violence, Politics is force,” sings the Reggae band on stage. Tattooed and pierced slacker youngsters with skateboards stand alongside working mothers with briefcases who complain of not being able to afford their kids’ school uniforms and books anymore and sway to the music. “We hate politics. We hate our politicians,” croons the band. But the problem now is that its not just the top echelons who are guilty of the damage done. The whole country seems to have followed the example of their leaders and jumped in to participate in the corrupt system, working it to their benefit. For a long time, few seemed to realize how much it would end up ultimately costing. “The corruption and bribe taking starts at the top and trickles down to the very bottom,” says Vassili Christaras, an engineer and former official in the state owned Electric Company. “Things were better 30 years ago. Now it is endemic.” Corruption today in Greece can be found in endless forms: It’s cheaper to pay off the driving test examiner 220 euros in cash and pass the test on the first go than pay 150 euros over and again and fail; It makes sense to hand over 10,000 euros to the hospital’s procurement officer if that’s what it takes to get the rights to provide band aids. And it is far easier to slip the tax authority 20,000 euros than have to admit to being in a higher tax bracket and paying five times more. The tax authority is generally considered the most corrupt body of them all. “It operates like a mafia,” charges Sabby Mionis, a Greek-Israeli businessman. “It’s so profitable to be the head of a regional tax authority, that people literally pay off the minister of finance to be appointed, and then use the position to blackmail and bribe businessmen and make a fortune.” The culture of tax evasion meanwhile, means that everyone from the house painter to your heart surgeon refrains from giving out receipts. A building-code public engineer on Milos island was recently found with 12 million euros in his bank account — on a salary less than 2,000 euros per month. A doctor in a public hospital in Athens was found to have saved 37 million euros, no doubt with some thanks to side deals with a French orthopedic company he recommended supply the hospital. “When it comes to corruption, we are like an African or Latin country, or like India, not like anything else you know in Western Europe,” observes Meghna Reddy, an Indian married to a Greek who has been living in the country for six years. “Just like in India, no one is doing much to change it, and accepts that it can continue.” But while India has the likes of low labor costs, an enormous internal market, and a culture of innovation, Greece is lacking in enough other advantages to offset the scourge of corruption. Not helping the situation is the fact that the public sector is both terribly bloated and ineffectual. Growing since the elder Papandreou came into power in 1981, the public sector today employs more than a million people, a quarter of the Greek work force. But few are willing to accept that painful changes, including a mass firing of public servants, must happen. These days, for example, worried that the government might go forth with its plans to privatize the electric company and sell it to foreign investors, making it more efficient and saving money –workers there have been orchestrating power failures in protest, causing blackouts around the country. At the root of Greece’s problems, continues Mionis — is an even more rudimentary problem: And that is that Greeks simply do not have a strong sense of the larger community. “There is no sense of ‘what is better for the whole,’ here, like there is in Israel,” he says. The country that long ago introduced the concepts of “democracy,” and “polis” to the world, where each citizen was expected to give their time and effort to public, military and cultural service — is today, a much more individualistic sort of place. “People are basically selfish, or put out a hand only to help their own families,” agrees Christaras, shrugging. “If you think nothing is going to change you start operating only in your own interests.” ** Even those who agree there is need for serious austerity measures are generally despondent about Papandreou’s plan, saying that even if the government had the real political will or ability to actually implement, as opposed to just pass, the measures — which few believe — and even if ordinary Greeks had the will or desire to play ball -which they are not– none of this goes far enough to solve the crisis anyway. Greece’s government debt, which is 160 percent of its GDP and rising fast, is simply too crushing for the tiny stagnating country of 11 million people to pay back. And next up, as and when this 12 billion last part of last year’s bailout is secured, is a second bailout, the details of which are being hammered out in far off European capitals and which is expected to be worth an estimated 130 billion euros more. Greece seems to be in a “debt trap,” where paying the interest on its mound of debt requires more and more loans. “We are just kicking the can down the road,” says Mionis. “Greece is one big Ponzi scheme, and is being supported by loans and European subsidies. When the EU sees the situation here is no longer contagious, to Ireland or Portugal or elsewhere, they will let Greece go bankrupted.” “A very great number of people are angry and hopeless,” says lawyer Stavros Papastavrou, an international secretary in Samaras’ Nea Demokratia party “And, while some are willing to make sacrifices, they want to know it will lead somewhere. They don’t want to sacrifice for nothing.” Samara suggestions for an antidote to the vicious cycle of recession however — including that taxes be lowered, not raised, so as to stimulate the economy — has been heavily criticized by the EU, as well as by many Greeks, who believe they are more populist but not any more effective. “Samaras’ suggestions are not sufficient for a ‘reboot’ of the economy,” says Agis Veroutis, a small business owner. “Without the shrinking of the public sector Leviathan, plus obliteration of soviet-style bureaucratic regulation, tax relief will only increase the deficits. Any solution to the current economic standoff must be comprehensive,” he argues. And meanwhile, Greece is fraying at the seams. The once high end shopping streets, where millions of euros used to be paid in key money to secure a corner store, now are filled with “for rent” signs. Graffiti on the bank buildings reads “Burn me.” Crime is up, and, the once fashionable neighborhoods around Omonia square downtown are becoming increasingly lawless, with illegal immigrants selling knock off Dolce Gabana handbags and dealing drugs, prostitutes strutting their stuff, and motorcyclists zooming through at incredible speed – without helmets–as police loll around the corners doing nothing. Just last month, in a crime that shocked the nation, a 44 year old man dashing to get his video camera from his parked car so as to take it to the hospital where his pregnant wife was giving birth — was jumped by thee assailants and killed. They were later were caught selling the camera for 150 euros. ** Back at the Athens’ College party in the suburbs, couples are taking to the dance floor, and — slightly drunk on too-strong cocktails — mouthing the words to the disco favorites and they bop around. It has been a good party, and a fun night, reminding them of the old days, when they were a little younger, and a lot more hopeful. This was originally posted on Haaretz.

Read the full article →

Richard Barrington: The Retirement Savings Crapshoot: 5 Ways to Improve Your Odds

July 8, 2011

The Employee Benefit Research Institute ( EBRI ) is a responsible organization which provides valuable research on the state of retirement savings in America. They are not, in other words, an organization you would associate with a Las Vegas odds maker, and yet a recent EBRI publication offered odds on a variety of different betting propositions. The betting propositions and odds involved were chances of retirement success. The EBRI runs computer simulations for a variety of different possible outcomes to determine the odds of a person in a given situation outliving their retirement funds (failure) or having enough money to live on in retirement (success). The EBRI’s probability approach points out two important things about retirement saving: Retirement saving is not a sure thing. Even if you make all the right moves, there will still be some chance of things going wrong. Average outcomes that are the basis for many financial planning models represent a 50/50 outcome — and that doesn’t sound so reasonable when you think of it as the chance that you might outlive your financial resources. Improving retirement odds Still, while retirement saving is not a sure thing, it doesn’t have to be a total crapshoot. Here are five things you can do to improve your odds: Start saving earlier. Fundamentally, think of retirement saving as two sides of a balance scale: the years of saving are on one side, and the years of spending are on the other. The more years you can add to your savings account , the more you will tip the scale in your favor. Raise savings rates. Of course, those years of saving and years of spending are not totally equivalent, since you will typically only save a fraction of your income. However, the higher you can raise your savings rates, the more impact those years of saving will have. Search for higher savings account rates. Any projection of success or failure in a financial model depends on certain assumptions, such as the rate of return on assets. Anything you can do to raise those returns — find higher savings account rates, make sound decisions in choosing investment products, etc., raises your chances of success. Make responsible asset allocation decisions. In the long-term, asset allocation is an important basis for those return assumptions, and for the actual results you achieve. Asset allocation should reflect your time horizon — i.e., the more time you have left to invest, the more risk you can take — and should be determined by long-range planning, not by knee-jerk reactions to market moves. Work longer. The EBRI study found that while working past the traditional retirement age of 65 does not guarantee retirement savings success, it does help improve your odds. This is especially true if you continue to contribute to an employee benefit plan in those extra years of your career. This goes back to the analogy of the balance scale: working longer is a way of adding years to the savings side of the balance, while subtracting years from the spending side. There will always be some element of a gamble involved in retirement savings, but you do have the power to improve your odds considerably in the way you take that gamble. The original article can be found at Money-Rates.com.

Read the full article →

U.S. Recovery’s 2-Year Anniversary Arrives With Little To Celebrate

July 1, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — This is one anniversary few feel like celebrating. Two years after economists say the Great Recession ended, the recovery has been the weakest and most lopsided of any since the 1930s. After previous recessions, people in all income groups tended to benefit. This time, ordinary Americans are struggling with job insecurity, too much debt and pay raises that haven’t kept up with prices at the grocery store and gas station. The economy’s meager gains are going mostly to the wealthiest. Workers’ wages and benefits make up 57.5 percent of the economy, an all-time low. Until the mid-2000s, that figure had been remarkably stable — about 64 percent through boom and bust alike. Executive pay is included in this figure, but rank-and-file workers are far more dependent on regular wages and benefits. A big chunk of the economy’s gains has gone to investors in the form of higher corporate profits. “The spoils have really gone to capital, to the shareholders,” says David Rosenberg, chief economist at Gluskin Sheff + Associates in Toronto. Corporate profits are up by almost half since the recession ended in June 2009. In the first two years after the recessions of 1991 and 2001, profits rose 11 percent and 28 percent, respectively. And an Associated Press analysis found that the typical CEO of a major company earned $9 million last year, up a fourth from 2009. Driven by higher profits, the Dow Jones industrial average has staged a breathtaking 90 percent rally since bottoming at 6,547 on March 9, 2009. Those stock market gains go disproportionately to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, who own more than 80 percent of outstanding stock, according to an analysis by Edward Wolff, an economist at Bard College. But if the Great Recession is long gone from Wall Street and corporate boardrooms, it lingers on Main Street: — Unemployment has never been so high — 9.1 percent — this long after any recession since World War II. At the same point after the previous three recessions, unemployment averaged just 6.8 percent. — The average worker’s hourly wages, after accounting for inflation, were 1.6 percent lower in May than a year earlier. Rising gasoline and food prices have devoured any pay raises for most Americans. — The jobs that are being created pay less than the ones that vanished in the recession. Higher-paying jobs in the private sector, the ones that pay roughly $19 to $31 an hour, made up 40 percent of the jobs lost from January 2008 to February 2010 but only 27 percent of the jobs created since then. Kathleen Terry is one of those who had to settle for less. Before the recession, she spent 16 years working as a mortgage processor in Southern California, earning as much as $6,500 in a good month, a pace of about $78,000 a year. But her employer was buried in the housing crash. She found herself out of work for two and a half years. As her savings dwindled, the single mother had to move into a motel with her three daughters. They got by on welfare and help from their church and friends. Terry started taking a 90-minute bus ride to job training courses. Eventually, she found work as a secretary in the Riverside County, Calif., employment office. She likes the job, but earns just $27,000 a year. “It’s a humbling experience,” she says. Hard times have made Americans more dependent than ever on social programs, which accounted for a record 18 percent of personal income in the last three months of 2010 before coming down a bit this year. Almost 45 million Americans are on food stamps, another record. Ordinary Americans are suffering because of the way the economy ran into trouble and how companies responded when the Great Recession hit. Soaring housing prices in the mid-2000s made millions of Americans feel wealthier than they were. They borrowed against the inflated equity in their homes or traded up to bigger, more expensive houses. Their debts as a percentage of their annual after-tax income rose to a record 135 percent in 2007. Then housing prices started tumbling, helping cause a financial crisis in the fall of 2008. A recession that had begun in December 2007 turned into the deepest downturn since the Great Depression. Economists Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University and Carmen Reinhart of the Peterson Institute for International Economics analyzed eight centuries of financial disasters around the world for their 2009 book “This Time Is Different.” They found that severe financial crises create deep recessions and stunt the recoveries that follow. This recovery “is absolutely following the script,” Rogoff says. Federal Reserve numbers crunched by Haver Analytics suggest that Americans have a long way to go before their finances will be strong enough to support robust spending: Despite cutting what they owe the past three years, the average household’s debts equal 119 percent of annual after-tax income. At the same point after the 1981-82 recession, debts were at 66 percent; after the 1990-91 recession, 85 percent; and after the 2001 recession, 114 percent. Because the labor market remains so weak, most workers can’t demand bigger raises or look for better jobs. “In an economic cycle that is turning up, a labor market that is healthy and vibrant, you’d see a large number of people quitting their jobs,” says Gluskin Sheff economist Rosenberg. “They quit because the grass is greener somewhere else.” Instead, workers are toughing it out, thankful they have jobs at all. Just 1.7 million workers have quit their job each month this year, down from 2.8 million a month in 2007. The toll of all this shows in consumer confidence, a measure of how good people feel about the economy. According to the Conference Board’s index, it’s at 58.5. Healthy is more like 90. By this point after the past three recessions, it was an average of 87. How gloomy are Americans? A USA Today/Gallup poll eight weeks ago found that 55 percent think the recession continues, even if the experts say it’s been over for two years. That includes the 29 percent who go even further — they say it feels more like a depression.

Read the full article →

Education Department Officials Accused Of Leaking Info To Short-Sellers

June 13, 2011

• “Did Education Department officials leak market-sensitive info to stock traders?” That’s the provocative headline from Project on Government Oversight reporting on a probe by the agency’s inspector general into controversial claims that may implicate Education Secretary Arne Duncan. IG Kathleen Tighe will “examine whether confidential DoED information and draft documents, including one produced by her own office, were transferred to Wall Street short-sellers seeking informational advantage in their bets on the future of the $35 billion for-profit education industry. Beyond the propriety of the Education Department’s conduct, the phenomenon raises broader questions about the integrity of government decision-making in the face of relentless Wall Street scrutiny,” reports POGO’s Adam Zagorin. One of the more damning revelations hidden in a trove of documents was an email sent by a short-seller banned by U.S. regulators from the banking industry. Manuel Asensio wanted changes to a then-confidential audit on Iowa-based Ashford University which would have negatively impacted the for-profit’s bottom line. (Though the short-seller may have been acting improperly, the for-profit school has had its share of problems. Read Chris Kirkham’s devastating probe of Ashford, “Buying Legitimacy: How a Group of California Executives Built an Online College Empire.”) • The State Department’s environmental review of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline is inadequate and fails to properly address the potential for spills and health impact for communities living near refineries, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The project, which has attracted plenty of over-the-top headlines, involves Transcanada’s plan to move 830,000 barrels of oil from Canada to Oklahoma and Texas. Since it is a multinational project and has involved years of negotiation, there has been intense pressure on the State Department to approve the project, reports the American Independent . Per a June 6 letter from the EPA to the State Department: As EPA and the State Department have discussed many times, EPA recommends that the State Department improve the analysis of oil spill risks and alternative pipeline routes, provide additional analysis of potential impacts to communities along the pipeline route and adjacent to refineries and the associated environmental justice concerns, together with ways to mitigate those impacts, improve the discussion of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions (OHOs) associated with oil sands crude, and improve the analysis of potential impacts to wetlands and migratory bird populations. • In the wake of several recent serious bus crashes, a new story by Bloomberg is particularly troubling. Bus safety regulators allowed operators to stay on the road after finding problems serious enough to shut them down, according to Transportation Department records viewed by Jeff Plungis. Those extensions have sometimes led to fatal results. Three days into a 10-day reprieve given to Sky Express, one of its buses crashed on May 31 outside of Richmond, Virginia, killing four passengers. • America’s first whistleblower? If you care about the rights of whistleblowers, read this fascinating history that reflects the “tension between protecting national security secrets and ensuring the public’s ‘right to know’ about abuses of authority,” reports the New York Times . Back in 1777, revolutionary soldier John Grannis informed the Continental Congress about the Continental Navy’s commander, Esek Hopkins, accusing him of treated prisoners “in the most inhuman and barbarous manner” and helping torture captured British sailors. • Who gets blamed if a government official injures herself during the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s new testing and evaluation center in Rockville, Maryland? Who makes those giant scissors for such ceremonies anyway? Just asking …

Read the full article →

The Creeping Rollback Of Child-Labor Laws

June 6, 2011

The government has not had a lot of ideas for what to do about the nation’s anemic job market, but there are troubling signs that one old idea is starting to re-emerge: child labor. In the first part of the 20th century, there was a concerted effort to end the scourge of children working in factories and textile mills. But now there is a small but noticeable drive to weaken these protections.

Read the full article →

Bant Breen: The Siesta Phone Call

June 3, 2011

Warning: Do not call Spanish homes between three and six in the afternoon! Let me explain the painful lesson I learn at the beginning of every summer. Every summer, my wife Carmen finishes teaching Spanish at a New York City school and heads to her hometown in Spain with our two young sons for some rest and relaxation. I stay in New York City tied to the classic American rat race work responsibilities. While summer separation presents plenty of challenges to a marriage, one of the cultural clashes my wife and I face is the siesta phone call. In southern Spain it is normal for a family to eat lunch during the summer between two-thirty and four in the afternoon. After lunch, many Spaniards take a siesta, a nap lasting from fifteen minutes to a couple of hours at most, before heading back to work in the late afternoon. My wife and her family are strict practitioners of the siesta. After the plates are cleared from the dining table, all family members head to take a siesta. Down come the heavy metal shutters over the windows, off go televisions, radios, computers and the dog is put outside on the patio. The noise of the traffic in the streets fades. During this restful moment is generally when I make my mistake. I arrive at my office pick up the phone and call Carmen to check on her and the boys before I get too caught up with work. The phone rings. And rings. And rings. Finally, I am greeted by a fumbling phone sound as someone on the other end reaches to pick-up the handset but struggles to get a clean grasp on it. I hear a voice, the voice of my wife’s father. It is an anxious voice, the type of voice that I use when I pick up the phone when I receive an unexpected call in the middle of the night. ” ¿Sí? ¿Quién es (who is it)?” he utters. On the other end of the line I answer with caffeinated, American accented Spanish, ” Hola Fernando. Soy Bant, desde Nueva York! ¿Cómo estás (how are you)? ¿ Puedo hablar con Carmen (can I speak to Carmen)?” This is when I hear the change in his voice from anxious to slightly irritated. “Ar, um, hola Bant, sí, errr, es siesta. Un momento. Voy a llamar a Carmen. (I am going to call Carmen)” He drops the handset and walks down the hall to wake my wife. Soon I hear my wife on the line. “Bant, is everything ok?” she asks in a concerned voice. I answer, “Absolutely, how are you? How are the kids?” When my wife realizes that all is well and that I am just calling to chat she shifts from concerned to angry. “What are you doing? Do you know what time it is? It is siesta! This is time for sleep, not talk. You woke my father, my mother. DO NOT CALL DURING SIESTA!!! We’ll talk later.” I hear a click as she hangs up on me. Not a great marital conversation, but cultural lesson learned. If calling a home in Southern Spain, especially in the hot summer months, do not call between three and six in the afternoon. Do not mess with sacred siesta. And maybe we can learn from the siesta. There is something extremely refreshing about grabbing a nap, even for only fifteen minutes, resetting the mind before tackling the second half of the day. Could we ever incorporate an idea like siesta into the US working day? Could we set aside our five-hour energy drinks for a nap instead? If we can, I will learn the lesson from my siesta phone calls and make sure my phone is off the hook.

Read the full article →

Jason Alderman: Financial Advice for Graduates

May 31, 2011

If you — or one of your kids — are about to graduate from college or high school, congratulations on successfully navigating the twists and turns of the education system. You don’t need me to tell you what a challenging, rewarding and expensive road it has been. But, as someone who’s learned a few financial lessons the hard way, I would like to share a few steps you can take now to ensure you’ll start the next chapter of life on sound economic footing. First, live within your means . The temptation to go on a spending spree after landing your first full-time job can be overwhelming. But if you’re a college grad, unless you sailed through on a full scholarship, you’re probably already saddled with thousands of dollars in student loan debt. (If you’re about to enter college, avoiding future loan debt is something to keep in mind.) Add in rent, car payments, credit card and personal loan balances and all your other monthly bills — not to mention payroll taxes — and your new salary may not go as far as you’d hoped. If you don’t already have a budget, get started on one now. Numerous free budgeting tools, including interactive budget calculators, are available online at sites such as the U.S. Financial Literacy and Education Commission’s MyMoney.gov , the National Foundation for Credit Counseling , Mint.com and Practical Money Skills for Life , a free personal financial management program run by my employer, Visa Inc. Speaking of student loans, here are a few repayment tips: Most federal loans offer six- or nine-month grace periods before repayment must begin, but many private loans do not. Carefully review your loan documents to see where you stand. Ask if your lender will reduce the interest rate if you agree to automatic monthly payments or after you’ve made a certain number of on-time payments. If you anticipate repayment difficulties, contact your lender immediately to try and work out an agreement to defer payments, extend the loan’s term or refinance at a lower rate. Many people with federal loans who are low-income, unemployed or working at low-paying, “public service” jobs in education, government or non-profits qualify for income-based repayment, where monthly payments are capped relative to adjusted gross income, family size and state of residence. To learn more, visit this Department of Education FAQ or read my previous blog, Federal Student Loan Changes . Also, read IRS Publication 970 for information on deducting student loan interest from federal income tax. In some instances, you can deduct up to $2,500 in interest even if you don’t itemize deductions. Know the score, credit-wise. Many people don’t realize the impact their credit score has on their financial future until after it’s been seriously damaged from making late payments, bouncing checks, opening too many accounts or exceeding credit limits. This can haunt you later when you try to borrow money for a house or car, rent an apartment or apply for a job (many landlords and employers now check credit records and reject applicants with poor credit). Find out where you stand by ordering credit reports from each major credit bureau – Equifax , Experian and TransUnion .You can order one free credit report per year from each bureau from AnnualCreditReport.com ; otherwise you’ll pay a small fee to each bureau directly. To learn more about the importance of understanding and improving your credit score, visit What’s My Score , a financial literacy program for young adults run by my employer, Visa Inc. It features a free, downloadable workbook called Money 101: A Crash Course in Better Money Management , a free tool to estimate your FICO credit score and Welcome to the Real World money guides on topics such as student loan repayment, finding a job, paperwork and taxes, and budgeting. Jumpstart your job search. You’ve probably already held a variety of jobs to help pay for college. Now it’s time to find a position in your field of study. Start with your school’s career counselors, who often provide services to alumni or will at least point you to other resources. While researching jobs and career paths, polish your resume. Make sure yours accurately reflects your accomplishments and shows potential employers you have the experience, drive and qualifications they seek. Use concise, strong language and an organized appearance. Don’t discount the importance of networking with family, friends, former school contacts, business and social organizations — basically anyone who might know of openings in your field. If you find a potential employer you admire, inquire about internships as a way to get your foot in the door. For more tips, see my previous blog, Online Job Search Tools . You’ve worked hard to earn your degree; now put it to work for you. Just make sure you don’t sabotage your efforts by starting out on the wrong financial footing. This article is intended to provide general information and should not be considered legal, tax or financial advice. It’s always a good idea to consult a legal, tax or financial advisor for specific information on how certain laws apply to you and about your individual financial situation. To Follow Jason Alderman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PracticalMoney

Read the full article →

Nation Watches As LA Sues Deutsche Bank

May 22, 2011

LOS ANGELES — A dead dog lies among the knee-high weeds, a sign to Guillermo Elenes that the burned out, boarded up house is being used as a dump. Inside, soiled diapers, fast-food trash and the strewn beer and vodka bottles indicate squatters have been living there. The dumping ground-crash pad serves as a squalid symbol of how the foreclosure crisis is riddling communities with blight because no one wants to shoulder the responsibility of maintaining foreclosed homes. “There’s one on every block,” said Elenes, a community organizer with the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment in Watts, a low-income South Los Angeles neighborhood pockmarked with foreclosed homes. “All we want is for the banks to step up and be good citizens.” Communities across the nation have made little progress in getting banks to maintain foreclosed properties, and as the ongoing crisis matures and bank-owned homes fall into advanced stages of disrepair, cities and residents are getting desperate. In a keenly watched move this month, Los Angeles forged a new strategy – it sued one of the world’s major financial institutions, Deutsche Bank, to force it to take care of 166 properties, both vacant and renter-occupied, charging the blue-chip German giant has turned into the city’s largest slumlord. “The buck stops with the owner of record. We’re saying, `You are an owner like any other owner,’” said Julia Figueira-McDonough, deputy city attorney. Not according to Deutsche or other banks. They say they aren’t really the owners, despite the fact that their name appears on the property title. They also say they are not responsible for maintenance. Representatives of Deutsche, as well as U.S. Bank, BNY Mellon and HSBC – three other major lenders that Los Angeles is investigating with an eye to suing, all said that loan servicers are responsible for property upkeep, as well as tasks such as sending default notices, modifying loans, selling homes, and collecting rent and mortgage payments. “We’re there in name only,” said Teri Charest, spokeswoman for U.S. Bank. “We’re trustees. We have a very limited role.” The real owners, the banks say, are the holders of the mortgage-backed securities – financial instruments comprising a pool of mortgage loans that are held in a trust and sold. The banks maintain they are simply distributors of the proceeds from the securities – the payments of a homeowner’s loan principal and interest – to the investors. Although the bank contracts the loan servicer, the bank’s role does not include pressing servicers to properly maintain the trust’s assets on behalf of its beneficiaries, bank representatives said. U.S. Bank, however, has sent notices to loan servicers that they must maintain properties in accordance with applicable laws, a statement said. Loan servicers, however, usually have a contract loophole that allows them an easy out from the maintenance burden. Typically, they’re only required to spend money on upkeep if they believe the outlay is recoverable, according to Laurence Platt, a Washington D.C. lawyer who has represented banks in foreclosure-related litigation. “Who pays for a pig in a poke?” he said. “This is a collateral issue of the whole foreclosure crisis.” Calls to two of the country’s largest loan servicers – Ocwen Financial Services of West Palm Beach, Fla., and Statebridge Co. of Denver, Colo. – were not returned. Houston-based Litton Loan Servicing declined to answer questions from The Associated Press. Many servicers are also owned by Wall Streeters such as Wells Fargo. The issue of loan servicers is an attempt to dodge responsibility, Figueira-McDonough said, because the banks are the owners of record, plus have a fiduciary duty to their trust beneficiaries. Officials in Los Angeles and other cities say they’re infuriated with the back-and-forth finger-pointing while an epidemic of eyesores is devastating neighborhoods. “We’re left holding the bag. Someone has got to be held accountable,” said Robert Triozzi, law director for the city of Cleveland, which unsuccessfully sued Deutsche Bank over different foreclosure-related issues three years ago. “Not only have these institutions caused this mess, they have continued to perpetuate it.” Silvia Lobato of South Los Angeles just wants repairs to the one-bedroom apartment she’s been renting for the past 14 years – named as one of the neglected Deutsche Bank properties in the city’s lawsuit. The kitchen sink plumbing has a leak that has caused the unit to rot and breed worms. The bathroom ceiling is covered with mildew. A city inspector told her the gas connection to the water heater is dangerous. Mice scramble in the walls. Everything was fine until the owner lost the duplex two years ago, said Lobato, who lives in the apartment with her three kids and another mother and her three children. Since then, she’s been unable to get the landlord to make repairs. “I call and call. They say they don’t have the money. I pay $680 a month in rent,” she said. “I worry about the kids in these conditions.” Governments have tried various tactics. Los Angeles, like many cities, last year enacted an ordinance mandating that banks register defaulting properties and pay a $155 fee so the city can track the property and collect funds for expenses. But despite the penalty of $100,000 fines for non-registration, the ordinance hasn’t worked because it relies on banks to self-report the properties. “There’s been minimal compliance,” said Figueira-McDonough. Other cities, including Fort Lauderdale, Fla., have tried to crack down by declaring unkempt homes “public nuisances,” and charging owners, including banks, with the cost of boarding up windows and mowing lawns. In cases where no owner can be found or bills are unpaid, a lien is placed on the property. Residents, incensed about homes on their blocks turning into drug dens, gang hangouts and vermin nests, are galvanizing. Watts resident Lynn Mottley drives around her neighborhood looking for telltale signs of foreclosure, such as chain link fences with no trespassing signs, jotting down the addresses in a notebook she keeps in her car. Mottley, an activist with the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment and the Home Defenders League, reports the addresses to the city and to lahoodwinked.com, an activist website that encourages residents to list foreclosed properties so the city can pursue owners for upkeep. Her notebook keeps filling up. “Wow, there’s another one,” she said, driving by a ramshackle bungalow with broken windows and an overgrown, junk filled yard. “Who wants to live next to this? Something has to be done.”

Read the full article →

Christine Negroni: Thunder and Aerospace A Winning Combination

May 19, 2011

The term “play ball” is a metaphor for all sorts of transactions outside of sports. But it was the refusal of United Airlines to “play ball” with Oklahoma City that brought the the Thunder to Wednesday night’s NBA playoff match with the Dallas Mavericks . Before the basketball team was even a gleam in the eye of the Sooner State , beleaguered citizens were casting about for ways to pump life into Oklahoma. Along came United Airlines in the early 90s, flirting with communities in the Midwest for a place to build a massive maintenance and repair operation. When the Chicago-based airline finally selected Indianapolis despite the fact that Oklahoma City had offered a $200 million incentive package, the story goes that the then Mayor Ron Norick called United and bluntly asked, “Why not us?” As Dave Lopez, the state’s secretary of commerce and tourism told me at a breakfast last month, the answer was as mortifying as being the last kid picked for a sandlot ball game; United executives “couldn’t imagine living in Oklahoma.” That kick in the gut was prelude to the much more horrifying event to come, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995. The bombing “laid to waste the core of downtown,” said Victor Bird, director of the Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission . But like the rejection of United and several other economic development efforts, it brought Oklahoma City to a period of serious self-reflection. “Our backs were against the wall,” Victor told me remembering that time. “If we want a place where our kids can stay and attract other talented individuals we’re going to have to make this city a better place.” So Oklahoma City enacted a series of taxes for metropolitan projects — a penny-a-dollar contribution that would be a pay-as-you-go plan for rejuvenating downtown and beyond. One of those projects was a sports arena, built in 2003 as a place where the city might — if it was lucky — convince a hockey team to come stay. An effort to do just that was in the works in 2005, when Hurricane Katrina chased the NBA Hornets from their home in the New Orleans Arena and the team needed temporary quarters. “It had sell-out crowds. It was one of the top teams for attendance” said Harve Allen, who was a press room manager for the Hornets while they were playing in Oklahoma City and now does the same work with the Thunder in addition to working for the aeronautics commission. “Not only did it surprise the NBA, but in New Orleans and maybe even here, and we started thinking, ‘We could possibly do this.’” When NBA basketball arrived, it united a state long-divided by college football rivalries. This is after all, a place where residents define themselves by their allegiance to either the Cowboys or the Sooners . When the Hornets decided to return to New Orleans, Oklahoma City — with a feeling of new possibilities — approached the SuperSonics who were looking to leave Seattle in 2007. As it had with United Airlines, Oklahoma City offered financial incentives and an eager population. This time, it worked . And while United’s long-ago rejection is not forgotten, it has been put in perspective. “If it weren’t for our interest in aerospace, the chain of events leading to the Thunder being in the playoffs would never have occurred,” the commerce secretary Lopez told me. We were together on a tour of the state intended to demonstrate just how successful Oklahoma has been in developing an aerospace economy . The new sports fan base and enhanced quality of life, were just interesting extras as far as I was concerned. (As was the ironic conclusion to the United- in-Indianapolis story. The airline closed the facility in a cost-saving measure in 2006.) When I heard the news of the Thunder’s victory over the Grizzlies I had to know what the folks in Oklahoma were thinking. “It was one of those circumstances where God has other plans,” Dave Lopez said, positively giddy to see a place United executives once “couldn’t imagine living,” in the company of great cities like Miami, Chicago and Dallas. “The city’s team,” Dave says enjoying the metaphor, “is flying high.”

Read the full article →

Chuck E. Cheese’s Sued For Promoting Gambling With Kids

May 14, 2011

The Chuck E. Cheese’s chain of restaurants uses the slogan, “Where a kid can be a kid.” But to one San Diego mother , the chain is really where a kid can develop a serious gambling habit. Debbie Keller, a real estate agent with two kids ages 3 and 5, is suing the Dallas-based restaurant chain for $5 million because she feels that many of the games intended for children at these locations are actually illegal gambling devices — like slot machines and roulette wheels. Although Keller is asking for a jury trial as well as damages and restitution totaling at least $5 million, her lawyer, Eric Binink told the San Diego Union Tribune that the money is a secondary issue. Benink said the lawsuit’s real purpose is to prevent Texas-based parent company CEC Entertainment Inc. from keeping the machines in its game rooms. “We don’t think that children should be exposed to casino-style gambling devices at an arcade,” Benink said, adding that the games take only a few seconds to play and some of them feature a roulette-style wheel. Many of the games at Chuck E. Cheese rely on 25 cent tokens, and, depending on the score, dispense tickets that can be redeemed for prizes. The higher the score, the greater the number of tickets. The more tickets, the better prize. Chuck E. Cheese attorneys are moving for a dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds that the games are legal and the California Legislature never intended to make operating a children’s arcade game a criminal act. They also contend that even if the games were illegal, then Keller would be an admitted participant in illegal gambling and therefore barred from seeking damages and restitution. The attorneys have asked a federal judge to dismiss the case, but the judge has not yet issued a ruling. Still, the suit does raise an interesting question: Does a child’s desire to win a plastic pterodactyl by playing Wack-A-Mole really send the little nipper down the slippery slope to gambling addiction that ends with them betting their mortgage payment on red at the local Native American casino? Gambling addiction expert Bob Cabiness, owns the Williamsville Wellness treatment center for compulsive gambling in Hanover, Virginia, isn’t betting on it. He sees a difference between a game that awards tickets and one that pays out cold hard cash. “The thing about gambling is the chasing,” he told AOL Weird News. “If you lose $10, you want to keep playing until you win it back. This is one step removed.” That doesn’t mean he hasn’t seen cases where games like the kind that are at Chuck E. Cheese — such as “The Claw,” where players try and pick up a prize using a metal clawed controlled by a joystick — cause people to go crazy. “I met one women in Gamblers Anonymous who was addicted to ‘The Claw’ and spent all her money on it,” Cabiness said. “She’d win a teddy bear and just throw it away.” That’s one person, but Cabiness still thinks Keller’s chances of prevailing in court are a crapshoot at best. “I don’t think [Keller] has a case. If the mother feels there’s gambling at Chuck E. Cheese, she shouldn’t take the kids there.” On the other hand, mothers like Hollie Schultz feel Keller’s pain. She has three kids ages 2, 4 and 6 and says her daughter has an addiction to the dreaded “Claw.” “We have left Chuck E. Cheese’s in her in tears begging for one more quarter,” said Schultz, who has written about her own issues with “Claw Rage” at her website, BabyGizmo.com. “I’ve seen her going through my purse for quarters. It’s devastating.” However, Schultz believes that Keller’s lawsuit is a sucker’s bet. “I don’t think she could win,” she said. “With Chuck E. Cheese’s, you know what you’re getting into. It’s when ‘The Claw’ is in the grocery store that bothers me.” Another mom who is bothered by the suit is San Diego blogger Morgan Quinn Benzian, who says Keller’s suit is “mind boggling.” Benzian — who has written love poems to the chain — freely admits she’s taught her daughter to play “The Claw” and claims the girl has, so far, not had any major meltdowns. Benzian believes that instead of suing Chuck E. Cheese’s, Keller should look at the restaurant as a godsend. “Chuck E. Cheese’s serves beer and pizza and they watch your kids for two hours,” Benzian said, adding with a cackle, “[Keller] better not f–k it up for the rest of us.”  

Read the full article →

Chez Pazienza: Professor Koch’s Psychopathy 101 Class

May 12, 2011

Just a couple of days ago I was mentioning to someone how Bret Easton Ellis’s American Psycho inadvertently turned out to be the single best chronicle of the entire ethos of the 1980s. What was initially repudiated as relentlessly ugly, hyper-violent nihilism has, in hindsight, taken on a strange air of both sly subversiveness and surprising prescience. What makes American Psycho so subversive is that it imagined soulless consumption and craven materialism taken to its seemingly inevitable conclusion. Patrick Bateman was what you would get if you removed all societal and moral restraint and left only the gooey center buried deep within our rapidly dissolving culture. What makes it prescient, however, is that it imagined a Wall Street populated by indifferent monsters willing to literally kill to get what they want. True, the barons and minions of today’s Wall Street don’t connect car batteries to people’s genitals or scoop out their eyes with pen knives (as far as we know). But if you’ve ever seen the documentary The Smartest Guys in the Room , about the rise and fall of Enron, and listened to recordings of commodities traders laughing to each other at the prospect of the elderly going broke and California burning up as they strangle the state’s power supply in the name of huge profits, you know that there are more subtle forms of sadism. I bring this up because another conversation I had this past weekend was with a friend of mine who represents Howard Dean’s group “Democracy for America” and she was rightfully complaining about the need for our nation’s MBA programs to begin putting more emphasis on business ethics. And two days ago the St. Petersburg Times highlighted how one business school, Florida State University’s, is coming under fire for a move that could very well be in exactly the opposite direction. Apparently, a few years back, billionaire tool Charles Koch donated around $1.5 million to the FSU economics school in exchange for, well, control of the FSU economics school — or at the very least the ability to decide which professors it hires. The goal, ostensibly, would be to ensure that the school does its part to foster his specific brand of free-market libertarian capitalism well into the next few decades. Think of it as Professor Xavier’s School for Randian Supermen, with Koch himself playing the role of Mentor X and choosing the actual professors. This is a disconcerting enough scenario; the fact that this is happening at a public university — funded, ironically, by taxpayers — is just all kinds of unscrupulous. And a lot of people are now starting to realize this. In 2009, Koch and his representatives used their bought-and-paid-for veto power to shoot down 60% of the faculty suggestions, at least a few of whom presumably lacked the conservative credentials that would’ve made Koch comfortable that he was getting his money’s worth. The draconian contract FSU entered into with the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation set up an advisory panel appointed by Koch himself, and that panel alone decides which candidates for various professorships deserve consideration. Oh, and the Sword of Damocles hanging over the university’s head? Koch can immediately pull all funding from the school if he doesn’t like who gets hired or if he finds, during his foundation’s annual reviews, that they’ve failed to live up to his “expectations.” This is what’s happening out there — what’s being allowed to happen. A very rich guy is essentially buying the kind of education he thinks your kids should have — one that he assumes will benefit him and his anti-interventionist ilk by turning them into new recruits to the cause. Koch’s plan is brilliantly creative: to go to the source and begin indoctrination from the very beginning — to not simply sell students a product but to make them become both the product and the salespeople at the same time. Forget ethics — Charles Koch is personally cranking out the next generation of Patrick Batemans. Better check the floor around you and make sure you’re not standing on plastic.

Read the full article →

Daniel Dicker: Oil’s Silly Season

May 12, 2011

This is the silly season, oil’s silly season. This is the equivalent of PGA golf in Hawaii at the start of the year, NBA basketball after the playoff teams have locked up their spots — unimportant games that no one is watching, margins of victory or loss that don’t reflect anyone’s ability. We’ve got golf pros making trips to sunny climes with their wives and kids and collecting appearance fees while some unknown walks off with the trophy. What else do you call an oil market that goes down $9 one day and then up $6 the next? An oil market that’s hanging around at $114 ½ last week and drops twenty bucks in three days and almost immediately rallies back close to ten? Driving these moves are the algorithmic traders, the commodity “renters” and the ETF hucksters with their double and triple long funds. This is the equivalent of the adults leaving the room, handing the keys of the Ferrari over to the teens and telling them to drive safe. Only the kids don’t just drive themselves into a ditch — they take the U.S. economy and everyone who fills a tank with gas to get to work with them as well. Put this move into perspective — from high to low, in a week, consumers were looking at a fifty cent a gallon discount from prices, a total savings to the American driving public alone of about $175 million a DAY. In a still teetering recovery, we could really use that relief. I’m listening to another oil trader on air talking to CNBC. I’ve known him for years, he’s smart and knows as well as anyone what’s been happening and yet he seems satisfied with the way the market is working: “I’m for investors”, he says. “No one has proven to me that speculators have anything to do with what’s happening here, the CFTC has studied and concluded that too…” (He’s wrong — the CFTC actually reversed its position of 2008 in August of 2009 and concluded exactly the opposite). “Liquidity helps”, he continues. “It cushions the moves up and the moves down”. This is another happily advanced canard: Last week, the iShares silver ETF, the SLV, traded more shares than the ETF that covers the entire S+P 500, the SPY. Did all that liquidity cushion the 30% drop in that metal’s price or add to its collapse? Could anyone argue that record volumes in oil futures being reported this month by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Intercontinental Exchange are removing volatility from the oil market, or much more obviously adding to it? Another oil trading colleague contacts me by email: “Why don’t you just tell them the truth?” he asks. “Tell them that if oil prices weren’t universally accessible to anyone with an Internet connection and real oil traders were still running this market, none of this would be happening”. He’s right and I’m telling. Look, I’m not sure what oil is worth. I’ve traded oil for 25 years and I don’t know if it’s worth $40 a barrel or $140 a barrel today, although I have my suspicions. But here’s what I do know: I do know that getting past the silly season of oil pricing, and figuring out what it’s really worth is going to help us all. It’ll help the commuter filling up his Ford or Chevy. It’ll help Pfizer and Alcoa and J+J, Goodyear and Hershey’s. It’ll help the local heating oil distributor and the local trucking company, looking to maybe hire a few new drivers, but hesitant because he’s unsure what it’s going to cost to fill those trucks next month, forget about next year. We could do it. The tools are all right there. We could remove the algorithmic players, the ETF hucksters, and the renters. We just have to get past the stories and the alibis. We need to look at the way oil is pricing and admit it’s the silly season. It’s time to take the keys of this Ferrari back. Oil is just too important to trust with the kids.

Read the full article →

Dr. Sasha Galbraith: The Wage Gap Plot Thickens

May 9, 2011

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal blatantly states that there is “no male-female wage gap.” Among other things, the author, Carrie Lukas (executive director of the conservative Independent Women’s Forum ), points out that women work an average of 8.01 hours per day on the job, versus men, who work 44.4 minutes longer each day. This difference, she says, explains over one third of that wage gap. Really? This just goes to show, statistics can be misleading. While often useful, they are also great at hiding a multitude of evils, as well as giving us nonsense. Take, for example, the fact that rich families spend more on groceries than poor families. So what? I guess then, the extra hours that women put in at home in unpaid family, elder and household care count for nothing in that wage gap. In fact, Lukas cites one group of people — single, childless urban female workers between the ages of 22 and 30 — who earn 8 percent more than similar men. And that’s my point exactly! According to a University of Michigan study of U.S. families, married women with three kids or more logged an average of 28 hours of housework per week. Compare that to the 10 hours per week put in by their spouses. In fact, getting married creates seven hours per week more (unpaid) work for the wife. Fine, you say, most married women with loads of kids don’t work full-time outside the home. True. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics , 43 percent of married mothers work full-time outside the home, about half the ratio of married fathers. But among married fathers and mothers who work, women spend twice as much time on housework (two hours per day) than men. Why should we care if people work for no pay? Because ignoring unpaid work distorts our Gross Domestic Product and the assessment of our national living standards. If a mother goes into the paid workforce, she has to arrange for someone to take care of the kids. In some cases, it might be a relative who probably will do this work for free, or it might be a childcare center for which she has to pay. Similarly, the family will probably have to pay someone else to clean the house and cook meals (restaurants and take-out services). While all those paid services count toward the GDP, they also overstate the implied benefits to our standard of living — which is usually assumed to track with the rise of GDP. Why should we care if women are paid less than men for doing exactly the same job? Because women invest their earnings differently than do men. According to a UNICEF report , women spend more money on the education, health and welfare of their families. This, in turn, benefits the economic well-being of the country as a whole. If women were paid the same as men, the U.S. GDP would be 9 percent higher (and Europe’s would increase by 13 percent, according to a UN report ). I’ve often wondered what would happen if all the women in the world decided not to do any of their unpaid work for a day. Oh wait, I think that’s called Mother’s Day. Happy Mother’s Day, ladies. Crossposted from Forbes.com .

Read the full article →

LA Dodgers Latest Victim of Financial Crisis

April 29, 2011

The recent financial crisis, brought about largely by a lethal mixture of negligently lax lending standards and often less-than-candid borrowers, has claimed another victim – the venerable Los Angeles Dodgers baseball franchise and the team’s legions of fans. At the same time, add Frank and Jamie McCourt, the Dodgers’ deeply tanned and high-living owners, to the list of notorious villains that have slunk from the ruins. In about the time it takes to play an old-fashioned double header, the McCourts journeyed from newly-minted toasts of Los Angeles to joining the ranks of disgraced Wall Street executives like former Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld and Angelo Mozilo , the founder of mortgage giant Countrywide Financial . The reasons are fairly simple and entirely symptomatic of an era in which everyone seemed determined to believe that real estate prices would never fall. In short, the McCourts, erstwhile Boston real estate developers, took advantage of a reckless lending environment to obtain a giant loan that left them so deeply leveraged it has apparently pushed them to the brink of default. Sound familiar? It should. It’s the same thing countless Americans did last decade, using sketchy credit information to obtain mortgages for houses they couldn’t afford, and then using the paper equity in those homes to fund lifestyles they also couldn’t afford. Meanwhile, they were leveraging themselves into deeper and deeper holes. Millions of them have lost their homes to foreclosure. Fuld and Mozilo lost their companies to bankruptcy and a fire sale, respectively. Now the McCourts, currently embroiled in a nasty divorce, could very well lose their team. Last week Major League Baseball moved to seize control of the Dodgers, appointing a trustee to oversee day-to-day operations of a franchise believed to be carrying more than $430 million in long-term debt, according to court records. “I have taken this action because of my deep concerns regarding the finances and operations of the Dodgers and to protect the best interest of the club, its great fans and all of Major League Baseball,” commissioner Bud Selig said in a statement. The arrangement reportedly requires baseball to approve any Dodger expenditure above $5,000. It was a shocking turn of events for the storied franchise, the same organization which under the stewardship of the O’Malley family in 1947 tore down the racial barrier in baseball and, a decade later, brought big-time professional sports to the West Coast. Ironically, when the McCourts purchased the team from News Corp .’s ( NASDAQ : NWSA) FOX division in 2004, many in Los Angeles were relieved to see the team pass from corporate ownership back into the hands of a family-run business: the McCourts would be the new O’Malleys, it was hoped. But that dream has turned into a nightmare, not least because the McCourts didn’t remain a family for long. In fact, it was their vicious divorce battle – essentially a battle for control of ownership of the team — that revealed to the team’s horrified fans the harsh reality that the couple were essentially using the Dodger brand to fund an exceedingly extravagant lifestyle. Michael D’Antonio, author of Forever Blue , a book on Walter O’Malley’s Dodgers, said the difference between the O’Malleys and the McCourts is that the former saw the team as an investment and the latter as “an ATM.” “Walter built the team as a sports enterprise and a business enterprise. He clearly recognized that, besides the product he put on the field, good will was his major asset,” said D’Antonio. “Even more than any business I can imagine, sports teams thrive based on their relationship with their customer. You need to have people love you,” he said. For decades, Los Angeles fans loved their team and loved the team’s owner. “It’s what’s known as ‘the Dodger way’ and it means fair but all out play. It also stands for the best in everything – whether it’s a spring training facility or the Dodger Dogs sold at Dodger Stadium. The idea was to give Los Angeles something that was first class in every respect. That was the product O’Malley delivered,” D’Antonio said. In hindsight, the current mess might have been predicted given the circumstances surrounding the sale of the team to the McCourts in 2004 for $430 million. A lawyer representing Frank McCourt in the divorce proceedings once referred to the purchase as “one of the most highly leveraged acquisitions in the history of major league baseball,” adding that McCourt himself had “put not a penny of cash” into the deal. According to the Los Angeles Times, McCourt had to borrow $145 million from FOX to get the deal done. His only collateral was a handful of parking lots in Boston. The team actually flourished under the new ownership, taking on a high profile manager in Joe Torre and making a string of playoff runs led by the flamboyant and wildly popular outfielder Manny Ramirez. “McCourt got a good product onto the field, but the relationship between the entity called the Dodgers and the community of Los Angeles deteriorated under his ownership,” said D’Antonio. “I think fans sensed a different style. Fans experienced the ballpark and team management as less accessible, less committed to the community, less devoted to doing everything right.” In 2009, just days after the team was eliminated from the playoffs, the McCourts announced they were separating. After that all hell broke loose. McCourt promptly fired his wife, whom he had installed as the team’s CEO in happier days, and it’s only gotten uglier since then. As has been widely reported in Los Angeles media, the bitter divorce proceedings have revealed that the couple used the team as their personal piggy bank. Frank drew a $5 million salary and paid Jamie $2 million. A couple of their kids were on the payroll as well, pulling down six figure salaries. Two Malibu homes were purchased, side by side and reportedly valued at $46 million. Meanwhile, ticket and concession prices rose each year, making it more difficult for fans to attend the games. “Where the McCourts fell down was in their approach to the team as an LA institution,” said D’Antonio. “I think people feel that. People feel they were too focused on the revenue streams and not enough on what the Dodgers meant to their fans and the city.” It seems Dodger fans may not have to suffer the McCourts much longer.

Read the full article →

Madoff Chronicler Discusses The Mind Of America’s Most Notorious Swindler

April 26, 2011

Perhaps the only individual more qualified than veteran New York Times financial reporter Diana Henriques to write the book on Bernard Madoff’s epic Ponzi scheme is Madoff himself. Hardly a stranger to the devastation wrought by white-collar crime, Henriques covered the Enron aftermath and a host of financial misdeeds and foul-ups and twice has been a Pulitzer Prize finalist. Henriques was born in Texas, grew up in Virginia and has lived in Hoboken, N.J. with her husband since 1988. Over tea in the study of her Hoboken brownstone, she discussed her experience writing “ The Wizard of Lies .” She said the book, for which she interviewed over 100 sources, was the most difficult project she’s ever undertaken. Unflinchingly cordial, Henriques speaks with a measured, authoritative tone, occasionally pausing to contemplate her answers. Every now and then, for a fleeting syllable or two, the remnants of a southern accent make their presence known. In “Wizard of Lies,” out today , she describes her prison meetings with the disgraced financier in detail, identifying what she calls the “Madoff magic,” and attempts to uncover what Madoff’s wife Ruth and his two sons knew about his decades-old scheme. She said the family made characters “straight out of Shakespeare.” You were the first reporter to visit Madoff at Butner Federal Correctional Complex and interview him face-to-face. I was. The Financial Times reporters visited him in March, but I was the first. It took about 18 months to set it up. Tell me about how you got the interview. Well, I started asking for the interview when he was at MCC [Metropolitan Correctional Center] in Manhattan, right after he pleaded guilty. I had a mailing address for him. I wrote him my first letter requesting it and I just kept after it. Note to young reporters: never give up. I kept asking and then he was moved to North Carolina, and I kept asking again. I didn’t even get an answer back for months. Then, I got a letter in September ’09, handwritten from the prison, full of flattery, saying that he’d followed my career, admired my professionalism — all this stuff. He wasn’t free to talk right now, he said. But when he was, I would be at the top of his list. So I folded that up and continued research on the book, assuming I was going to have to write this book without Bernie Madoff. So I interviewed everybody in the world that I could. Finally, in the early summer of 2010, his lawyer reached out and suggested to me that it was looking a little more promising that he would talk to me. He eventually agreed and then it took a month to get the prison paperwork done because the warden has to approve any media visit. Eventually the warden approved it; I got a call that gave me six days notice to be down there on the particular day. That was in August 2010 and that was my first visit. It was a little over two hours and I still had pages of questions. And he volunteered — he said, “Write them out and I’ll answer them by letter.” And he did. I exchanged letters and then emails and a phone call or two between that visit and my visit in February, which was my second visit. And we continue to trade emails. I just got one from him yesterday. Have you given him an advance copy of the book? No. So he has no idea. He hasn’t seen it yet. And do you expect that he’ll read it? He says he wants to. He’s asked if the publisher can ship him one. They have restrictions in prison on what they can receive through the mail. But he certainly wants to get one. He didn’t like the title, though. He did tell me after the interview in February he thought the title was “too sensationalistic.” [Laughs] Come on? A Times reporter sensationalizing the title? I didn’t pick the title, but, you know, we changed the title actually, after the first visit. It was originally going to be called “A World of Lies” to reflect this global Ponzi scheme, this web that he had stretched from Palm Beach to the Persian Gulf. But after I visited him that first time and really got a taste of the Madoff magic, and began to see how he tried to manipulate people and how he dealt with selling his story, it was clear to me and my editor that he belonged at the center of the title, because he kind of shifted the center of gravity for the book. So that’s when we changed the title to “The Wizard of Lies.” And once I heard it, I knew it was the right one. I like it even if he doesn’t. How did he strike you at first as a human being? Well, I had known him slightly, before he was arrested. He had been a middling prominent figure in a topic I covered for the Times back in the 1990s, when stock exchanges were going through this great upheaval, similar to what newspapers are going through now — where technology was radically changing the way of doing business, the cost of doing business. And Madoff was quite visionary and quite a pioneer in the effort to computerize stock trading. And I covered a number of conferences where he was on the panel or he was a keynote speaker. I talked to him. I got to know his firm because they were pioneers in after-hours trading. When he was first arrested, the name instantly rang a bell with me and I immediately went to the [ Times ] business editor and said, “We’ve got something big here. Bernie Madoff’s just been arrested for fraud.” So, I knew him before. And then I thought of him as a very down-to-earth, plainspoken, very approachable person. A typical trader, a typical roll-up-your-sleeves, up-from-the-neighborhood kind of guy. When I first met him in prison, my first impression was how polished he had become since I had known him 15 years earlier, even in his prison uniform. Every crease is crisp, every button is buttoned. His belt is shiny, his shoes gleam. Very much the dandy, even in prison. And very much in control of our conversation. He had a very engaging, low-key style. Never took his eyes off of me. [He] leaned forward and was very interested in everything I had to say. A few little jokes, a little bit of flattery. But very much on-message. When I saw him the second time, after his son’s suicide, I was stunned at the change in him. From across the room, I would not have recognized him as the same man. So much thinner. In fact, the uniform involves one of the those web belts and he had the belt pulled so tight that the end of it was folded under to keep it from flopping. One of his buttons on his shirt was undone and he didn’t notice it until about halfway through. He buttoned it up. This had been an immaculately groomed, crisp, confident man back in August. In February, he seemed to holding on to his control with both hands. Fiercely. No jokes. No humor. Barely a smile. And this was two months after his son’s suicide. He was clearly devastated by that. I want to come back to that, but you mentioned a minute ago the “Madoff magic.” Can you elaborate on that? Is he a charming guy? You know, he isn’t. And that makes him a very unusual Ponzi schemer. I’ve covered at least half a dozen Ponzi schemers during my career. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them around. Nothing on this scale, of course. But they are typically bon vivant, swashbuckling, charismatic guys. They’re the guy over in the corner telling the funny stories that everybody wants to hear. Madoff was never the most charming man in the room. But, he could make you feel like you were the most charming person in the room. That was the magic. He could reflect back on you a very attractive image of yourself that made you feel good. I felt it. I’m sitting there interviewing him in this prison and I’m feeling like I’m one of the best reporters he’s ever known. He bounces it back — that feeling of, “Oh, you’re so interesting, you’re so competent, you’re so professional.” It’s an amazing gift. And I’ve never before met a Ponzi schemer who’s so low-key in terms of his gregariousness and yet able to sprinkle that pixie dust on you and make you feel like, suddenly, you were so special. It’s an amazing gift. And he is so believable. I did not ask him to grant me an exclusive interview. But when he asked that the interview in August and emails and conversations be embargoed for use in the book, and his lawyer explained why, I agreed to that. But I also explained to him that an embargo is a two-way street. If he broke it, then I’m off the hook. He repeatedly assured me that he would not talk to any other reporters, that he would not let any other interviews get ahead of my book. Well, of course he was lying. But you know, he had me for just a little while. Here I know he’s the biggest liar in North America, but for just a little while, I said, “Phew, there’s one less thing I have to worry about. Good. That’s fantastic. Thank you, Bernie!” And, of course, it wasn’t true and I realized the next morning, you wake up and say, “Oh yeah, that’s Bernie Madoff giving me this promise. I can’t rely on it too heavily.” He is a fascinating character. Do you like him? Did you find that you built a rapport with him after the meetings and emails and phone calls? No, I did not. To be candid, he frightened me a little because he was so unpredictable and so untrustworthy. Absolutely no predictability. And he’s extremely intense. When he seizes on a topic, it’s hard to pry him away. But, I didn’t expect to like him. It was relatively easy to work with him, but I was always uneasy about it because he was so unpredictable and untrustworthy. I owe it to him to say that he’s an extremely bright man, he’s extremely intelligent. So there’s a level at which you can converse with him about things that is satisfying. He knows an enormous amount about financial history, which is one of my favorite topics, so we had that in common. He is smart and engaging to talk to. On that level, I felt we found a little common ground. But just in terms of dealing with him as a human being, [there was] something uncomfortable about him. Were you able to interview any of his immediate family members — Ruth and his kids — for the book? Everyone I interviewed on the record is identified by name in the book. People who are not identified by name in the book — and the immediate family members are not — either did not talk to me or spoke with me in confidence and it would not be fair to either group to start playing guessing games like that. But my research about the family was pretty intense and pretty broad. And I feel confident that I have a fairly clear picture of the family dynamics. There’s no doubt the family has been shattered by this crime. It’s almost a blinding glimpse of the obvious to say so. Madoff’s sons were deeply upset that Ruth did not walk out on him. I worked very hard to try to understand, through as many confidential sources as I could, why she didn’t go. And I asked Madoff himself why she stayed. That’s the one point in the first interview where he broke down and cried. And I do think it was genuine. He didn’t even have a Kleenex with him. His lawyer had to find some little paper napkins in the snack bar area. But he said all her friends told her she should leave, which I knew to be true. He told her she should leave, that she didn’t have to stay. As the firestorm of criticism and vitriol was growing, he could see that it was hurting her to stay with him. But she would not walk out on him. And, as I understand it, how she has explained it, is that she had a love affair with this man for 50 years and she just felt she couldn’t abandon him at this time of his near destruction. You know Larry and I have been married for 42 years and I can sort of understand it. I don’t think younger couples can. She met and fell in love with Bernie when she was 13 years old. He was a lifeguard, she wasn’t even in high school yet. Pretty girl. And he was handsome, sun-bleached hair. She fell in love the first time she met him and married him at 18. You have to keep that in mind when you weigh the decisions she made after his arrest. It was a lifelong love affair. Everybody who knew them agreed that they were still like sweethearts. One person said that the only person who thought more of Bernie than Ruth was Bernie. She really worshipped him. Do you believe the story that she had no idea about the Ponzi scheme? I do. What about his sons? I do not believe they knew and I explain in the book my reasoning. My goal with “The Wizard of Lies” was to assemble the available evidence, offer my analysis of it and let the reader make the decision. My starting point was: innocent until proven guilty. Fairness requires that. And then as a reporter, I began looking for the evidence that would change that verdict, if you will. I couldn’t find it. I couldn’t find one victim that could ever remember talking to Ruth, Mark or Andrew about their investments. And there are some pretty strong and, to me, convincing bits of evidence that argue in the opposite direction. For example, Frank DiPasquale, Madoff’s key lieutenant, is facing a 125-year sentence, having pleaded guilty. He has given grand jury testimony that has resulted in five indictments of people who worked at the firm, none of them are Madoff family members. None of the employees who have been indicted have made any move to try to get leniency or to cut a deal to make a plea bargain by providing evidence implicating the Madoff family members. But even more telling to me, there’s a scene in the book where Bernie is notifying Ruth, Mark and Andrew that it’s all falling apart, that the firm in insolvent, that he is ruined, that it is all a fraud. Now, if they’re his accomplices, what happens next? They pack their bags, they empty the bank accounts, they take the keys to the private jet, they fly off to the ocean-going yacht in the Mediterranean and they wind up in some country with no extradition treaty with the United States and live the life of the comfortable fugitive. I mean, it’s worked for [indicted commodities trader] Marc Rich for decades. That didn’t happen. They had the means to flee. They had the time to flee. And if they were his accomplices, they certainly had the motive to flee. Nobody fled. That’s pretty telling to me. After he confessed to his sons and his wife, they acted like people who suddenly learned they were financially ruined. They did not act like people who expected to be arrested and locked up for the rest of their lives any minute. And if they were his accomplices, it’s hard to believe that would not have been their fear. Frank DiPasquale was in a lawyer’s office within less than 24 hours of Madoff’s arrest. Everybody on the staff was hiring lawyers and looking out for themselves. The reader will make their own decisions. I could not find any convincing evidence, really almost no evidence at all, that they knew. I pored through every lawsuit that’s been filed against them, both by the Madoff trustee and by the private litigants. There’s not an email, not a conversation, there’s nothing presented in any of that litigation that casts any doubt on them at all. My conclusion is the odds-on likelihood is that they didn’t know. How does that speak to the pressure he was under, not being able to share the secret with his wife, his kids, who worked for him? Did you sense a really strong individual when speaking with him? He is a strong-minded man. Even after Mark’s death, in the first few emails we exchanged, there was no mention of it. There were things he wanted to talk to me about, questions he wanted answered, research he wanted me to do about something he remembered reading that he thought was significant for his case. He’s operating on this completely cerebral level and only about the third email after Mark’s death did he even acknowledge that I’d sent a condolence note. He is what psychiatrists call a very well-defended mind. He has defended himself against that which with he cannot cope. I think that defense — his ability to lock things away and not acknowledge them — which I’ve seen dealing with him in prison, is the same quality that enabled him to live with what he was doing on a daily basis. Were you able to interview Harry Markopolos, who repeatedly tried to notify the SEC that something was up with Madoff. I know Harry. In fact, I attended Harry’s book party when his book came out. Harry was helpful to my research. I think that’s as much as I can say. After being brushed off by the SEC many times, why do you think he didn’t seek out a reporter? Or did he? It’s a wonderful question and I put it to his lawyer and everyone who knew him. It almost seems like you’d want to do something like that just to stick it to the SEC for rebuffing him so many times. There are any number of places that might’ve taken his accusations, if acted on. But he didn’t, and I have never found his explanations particularly satisfying. He claimed that he and his investigative friends were in fear for their lives. That Madoff had so much to lose that he would think nothing of snuffing them out in order to avoid detection. And yet he kept reporting this allegedly murderous criminal to a civil regulatory agency that doesn’t even carry handcuffs. The explanations never made any sense to me. He publicly acknowledges that he’s a failed whistleblower. What’s the state of the SEC today? Have they improved since the Madoff scandal broke? Certainly they’ve addressed many of the management problems that the Madoff case exposed. It’s a much flatter management pyramid. More boots on the ground, fewer people behind desks. They have recruited some very impressive talent. Trying to hire top-flight accountants, forensic lawyers and investment experts at a time when the economy is so bad is pretty easy. They were able to pull in some talent they might not have been able to get in an earlier age. They have really amplified their technology, their computer analysis, their ability to use data analysis. They certainly have become far more aggressive about the cases they’re taking on. If you look at the cases they’ve brought in the two years since Madoff, look at who’s been sued and settled: Goldman Sachs, UBS — I could go on and on. I think the foundation is there to rebuild, but the SEC wasn’t undermined in a day and it won’t be rebuilt in a day. It’s going to be a process that’s going to take time and continued budget commitment. And that’s what I’m not sure we’re seeing — a continued commitment by Congress to provide the SEC with the money everyone thought it should have in the aftermath of the financial meltdown and the Madoff scandal. Stay tuned to see whether the promises of reform at the SEC get financed. Do you think there’s another similar type of fraud out there the SEC doesn’t know about, but is kind of under their nose like Madoff was? I would be surprised for this reason: A whistleblower like Harry Markopolos knocking on the door of any SEC office in this country today is going to get a very different reception. One of the things the SEC did was to completely revamp how it deals with incoming tips, whistleblowers, anonymous letters. It has created a new structure for incoming tips and whistleblowers so that they don’t get lost and don’t fall off the table. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I can guarantee you that there is another Ponzi scheme out there that we haven’t heard about yet. Ponzi schemes are, to me, one of the most fascinating crimes on Wall Street, one of the most fascinating financial crimes that there is. The air they breathe is trust. A Ponzi scheme cannot grow in an environment that’s devoid of trust. Nothing else can either, so in order to eliminate Ponzi schemes, you’d have to create a world completely devoid of trust. And when you’ve got a world like that, number one, none of us wants to live in it. And, number two: You can’t run a modern economy without a minimal level of trust. But that level of trust is exactly the level of trust a Ponzi schemer needs to get away with it. Now, Ponzi schemes are a peculiar crime in that you don’t feel any pain until the very end. I think the Madoff story introduces a new species of Ponzi scheme. Traditionally, we’ve thought of Ponzi schemes as the classic, too-good-to-be-true fraud. Fifty percent returns a month. Double your money in 10 days. The classic Ponzi scheme, all the way back to the first one in the 1920s, appealed to our greed. The get-rich-quick itch. The Madoff scheme did not appeal to people’s greed; it appealed to their fear. Through most of the Madoff scam, you could’ve made more money somewhere else. There were years when the Magellan Fund at Fidelity was producing much better results that Madoff’s investors were getting. It wasn’t that they were greedy: He was so consistent. He was so safe. They felt safe with Bernie in an increasingly volatile, scary, complicated market. If a Ponzi scheme appeals to your greed, a Madoff scheme appeals to your fears. I can’t tell you how many people told me, “He made me feel safe.” Those are the kinds of frauds I worry we’re going to see more of. Should the SEC just hire Bernie Madoff to help investigate tips that come in? No, I don’t think we would go there. Why not? When they finally caught up with him after all those years, the FBI hired Frank Abagnale, Jr. to help it investigate forfeiting crimes. Could Madoff do the same for the SEC? That’s an intriguing question. No one’s ever asked me that. I guess it’s a two-part question. Would he want to do something like that and would the SEC ever entertain something like that? I think he would. In fact, some academics have written to him in prison and asked him to contribute his thoughts on Wall Street ethics. They essentially are asking him, “What do you think would have helped alert people to what you were doing?” And Madoff has told me he’s interested in talking to them, corresponding with them. So, I do think he feels like he’s got something to teach. But I don’t think he understands himself well enough yet to teach people how to avoid con artists like him. Would the SEC ever entertain the idea? Not in this universe. Is there any way he can redeem himself, even in the smallest sense? Is that something he’s expressed to you that he’s interested in doing? He does. He certainly says he wants to. He claims he’s tried to help the bankruptcy trustee recover assets for Madoff victims. Would that amount to a form of redemption? Well I think Irving Picard could say, “Thanks, but no thanks.” Picard and his legal staff are doing a pretty remarkable job of going after assets without much help from Madoff, although I think that Madoff has provided them with some information. I know that Picard’s lawyers have met with him and spent 16 hours interviewing him in prison a couple of weeks before I was down there. And I’m told he was a confirmatory source, as lawyers say. He confirmed much of what they thought they knew, confirmed that, in some cases, they were on the right track. But he has subsequently said things that in many cases contradict the allegations they are making in the lawsuit they’re filing. He told me in the very first visit something that shocked me so that I included it in the prologue of the book: He said that with the money that investors had already gotten out of the Ponzi scheme and with the money that the bankruptcy trustee was going to be able to raise for them and return to them, his victims were probably going to make out better than people who were legitimately invested in the stock market during the meltdown of 2008. He thinks that about all of them? Not the ones who committed suicide and their families. Not the ones who’ve had to uproot their entire lives and sell their beloved homes. The human cost of the crime is part of the equation that he just doesn’t see. He’s utterly in denial about that. And what should the finance industry, lawmakers and America at large take away from this story? A moral if there is one? Self-deception is an extremely dangerous practice. Lying to ourselves is how we get in the most trouble. If there is a lesson, it is the oldest human lesson. To thine own self be true. If people take nothing else away from the book, I hope they take that. Lying to yourself is a luxury that you just can’t afford. How’s it feel to get this project done? I’ve never worked harder on any project. This is my fourth book, but without a doubt the most laborious, most fascinating. This is like a novel, but it’s true. Bernie had four near-death experiences before he was finally caught, some of which people will read about for the first time in the book. I fell in love with the story. At the beginning of this process, I kind of flippantly said that to do this story justice would take a collaboration between Shakespeare and Woody Allen, without the jokes. But it truly is such a timeless drama. I felt kind of humbled at the challenge of trying to live up to the potential.

Read the full article →

Laurie Gerber: Why Self-Deception And Leadership Don’t Mix

April 23, 2011

When I talk to leaders, I find out that a lot of them struggle with feeling like frauds. After all the work you do to succeed, do you sometimes still end up feeling like a fraud? Recently my leadership capacities took a leap forward when I realized that I was being a hypocrite. I was telling other people to speak the truth to their parents, and I wasn’t standing up and speaking “my truth” to my dad on the subject of his smoking. As soon as I started dealing with that head on, I experienced more confidence in front of large audiences and in front of the camera. I know another great leader who, despite tons of success as an internationally known fitness instructor, still felt like she didn’t really know what she was doing. She opened up and began talking about it in front of her classes and realized that she had been thinking that her unique version of exercise was some how “less than” other more established brands. However, in revealing that, and in rethinking it, she realized that it was in fact even more special because it was different. But then there was this other compounding issue of updating her certifications, which she also admitted needing to do. Clearing that up, she experienced a whole new level of success and confidence. She stopped hiding her internal dialogue (which we all know is so often wrong ) and started telling the truth about her trials and triumphs as part of each class she led. As she made transparency her policy, she was forced to deal head-on with anything that was troubling her and was loved through her process by her students. The public nature of this type of leadership caused her to correct things in her life and to be an inspiration in ways she had only dreamed of doing “on her own” or with just a therapist. What a gift to have “a public.” What an inspiration she was to her public. I know a spiritual leader, similarly, who was shocked and appalled to realize that she was teaching a message of peace and acceptance while regularly losing control with her young son and yelling at him. On some level, how could she not feel like a fraud? But we don’t say to ourselves, “I am a fraud.” Instead, when thinking of taking the next leadership risk, we think things like, “I am just shy,” or, “I’m not good enough yet,” or even, “I don’t really want/care about that.” The truth is, we do want more and we do care. Many of you have a vision for something you want to see happen. It could be a reconciliation or improvement in your family or in your marriage. It could be a better household system with your kids. It could be teaching the art of breathing or pottery or architecture or law to a group of students, or it could be working with a non-profit or company that has a local, national or global mission to fulfill. To get the job done, you need to be free to lead, confident in yourself, your ability and your right to command others to listen and follow you. Consider that you want someone to follow your lead. In order to hold your head high and ask for that, you need to really trust yourself. The first step in building self-trust is telling the truth about where you are right now. If you are stuck in your leadership, ask yourself if you have one or more of the issues I brought up in my first three examples. You might be a hypocrite on some level. You might be unresolved about an incident that happened to you that clouds your view of what is possible. You might be staying quiet about something you need to speak up about. When you start talking about it to others (truthfully), you are forced to deal with it. * * * * * Dip your toe in to this process by first confessing something on my life coaching blog . Leave a comment and I’ll respond. And if you haven’t already, I recommend that you schedule a free life coaching session .

Read the full article →

Vivian Diller, Ph.D.: Boomers Supporting Boomerang Children: A Positive Trend?

April 23, 2011

When your grown-up kids drop by to visit, do they still come with bags of laundry? How often do they leave with bags of leftovers — and maybe even a bit of cash — alongside their neatly folded, clean clothes? According to a recent Reuters report , there are many Baby Boomer parents in this country who are supporting their adult kids in lots of ways, with moms being the go-to person 60 percent of the time when offspring run into economic problems. The report was based on an online survey in Florida conducted by a research firm called Kitchen’s Group. They found that “of women with children over age 18, nine percent said they had adult children living back home for indefinite periods. Twelve percent were primarily responsible for their adult child or children’s financial well-being and 31 percent said they had children who returned home, relied on them but expected to become independent.” Although parents are not legally obliged to support children over the age of 18 (and in years past, few parents did), and although 86 percent of the Boomer moms in the survey were financially independent by the time they were 25 years old, it is clear that many parents today will do what they can to help their adult children. AARP confirms this new trend, saying the stats from the smaller Florida survey are in line with their own larger ones, which have shown that 69 percent of their members currently provide some level of financial support to their adult children. So what are the reasons behind this cultural shift? Is it a positive trend indicating that more young adults feel free to seek support from their parents as they struggle to establish themselves in their careers? Does it suggest greater closeness between moms and their kids, a kind of intimacy that was less common in previous generations? Or is it less positive, indicating an increasing over-dependence by children on their parents and vice versa? Perhaps, more worrisome, does it reflect a reluctance among 20-somethings to stand on their own two feet, resulting in a culturally induced laziness enabled by Boomer parents? High Unemployment The most apparent reason for young adults taking longer to become financially independent is clearly the current state of our economy. The Millennial generation reached their 20s just as the stock market crashed and a global economic downturn began. They entered the workforce as unemployment was rising, jobs were being eliminated and a college degree no longer ensured career opportunities. For many, moving back home or asking for financial help gave them the option to pursue unpaid internships, seek further schooling or simply wait out the recession. Although most of these young adults say that they would prefer to live on their own and be financially independent, when their parents offer help, most take it. Some have little choice. Others want to maintain the kind of lifestyle they were used to — or feel entitled to — and hope to avoid taking jobs they believe are beneath them. And parents go to great lengths to help meet their children’s wishes. One financial website writes that “mothers and fathers don’t always plan to be paying for their child’s expenses” after they reach the age of adulthood and find themselves filing for bankruptcy as they accumulate debt trying to help their kids become independent. Empty Nest vs. “Empty Next” Consider, too, that requests for financial help by adult children tap into the already existing ambivalence many Boomer mothers feel about this phase of their lives. Moms who have spent their 20s, 30s and 40s caring for their children feel pulled in opposing directions as their midlife approaches — to hold on or move on. While they may begin preparing for their years ahead without children and even look forward to spending more time on themselves, there continues to be a strong pull to hold on to what is familiar — the full house, even if messy bedrooms and empty fridges are left behind. Instinctively, many Boomer moms yearn for (or can easily be lulled back into) their role as caretaker — the go-to person. Being needed helps some women maintain their sense of purpose just as they face fears about becoming invisible, both physically and emotionally. (I like to call this phase the “empty next,” so that women focus less on losing their nest and more on what can come next; see chapter seven in my book, ” Face It; What Women Really Feel As Their Looks Change .”) Supporting children during this time can be viewed by some women as fulfilling, even if at the same time it financially drains them. New Family Structure Then there’s the fact that in the last 20 years, our family structure has become a great deal more child-centered, even as those children become full-fledged adults. No longer is Dad at the head of the table as Mom serves the meals and tells the children to go off to play quietly — think “Father Knows Best” being replaced by the kind of gatherings in “Brothers and Sisters.” Not only is the family dinner a thing of the past, but most mealtimes, weekends and vacations are now oriented around the kids’ activities: soccer practices, ballet classes, tutors, camps and other extra-curricular interests. Often both parents work, some even taking on extra jobs or second mortgages, just to finance their kids’ active and enriched lives. With children growing up assuming that parents will make these kinds of sacrifices, it isn’t surprising that they expect them to continue right through adulthood. Helicopter parenting can lead to overly dependent children who are loathe to give up their hovering but supportive families. We have to ask ourselves whether the wonder years have become the wander years, with too many young people ultimately lost because they were coddled too long. Generational Differences That Boomers remember their young adulthood differently isn’t difficult to understand. These women were raised by post-depression parents who emphasized the importance of financial self-reliance. Boomer women were also pioneers of the feminist movement. Economic success was not only about financial security, but served to ensure that they would avoid the dependency their mothers felt on men. These moms were among the first to break many of the glass ceilings that their Millennial children now take for granted. The result? Young adults today — especially 20-something women — view financial dependence neither as a failure nor as a betrayal of their political beliefs as many of their mothers might have. They are less embarrassed about what they see as a temporary and transitional stage. And since some of these moms wrestle with residual regret having pursued careers while leaving kids at home, indulging them now can meet needs all around — relieving moms of their guilt while helping out their grown children No doubt, the statistics indicating that more Boomer mothers support their adult kids reflect complicated psychological and cultural issues. And this recent Reuter’s report doesn’t even begin to explore the father’s role in this family dynamic. Is it possible that moms are the go-to person, viewed as having a softer touch, while dads are the go-away ones, more likely concerned about money matters? Are fathers hesitant to offer support because they worry that it will foster dysfunctional dependency? Do different attitudes about this issue contribute to marital problems in addition to financial stress at midlife? Maybe more importantly, given that many Baby Boomers have not planned for their own personal and economic futures, this trend raises questions about the long-term impact on how it will all work out in the end — for parents and children alike. We can all benefit from a better understanding of this cultural phenomenon. What do you think about adult children being financially supported by their moms or dads if they are in the position to help? * * * * * Vivian Diller, Ph.D. is a psychologist in private practice in New York City. She has written articles on beauty, aging, media, models and dancers. She serves as a consultant to companies promoting health, beauty and cosmetic products. ” Face It: What Women Really Feel As Their Looks Change ” (2010), written with Jill Muir-Sukenick, Ph.D. and edited by Michele Willens, is a psychological guide to help women deal with the emotions brought on by their changing appearances. For more information, please visit www.VivianDiller.com . Continue the conversation by following Dr. Diller on Facebook (at facebook.com/Readfaceit ) and on Twitter.

Read the full article →

Scott Mendelson: You Say Slump, I Say ‘Smaller Movies With Legs’

April 21, 2011

If Fast Five and/or Thor fail to open to $50 million or more, then I’ll start to worry. If Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides doesn’t open anywhere near $100 million and doesn’t clear $250 million, I’ll start to be concerned. If Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, Part II grosses under $260 million, I’ll maybe start panicking. But until any of those things occur, let’s stop whining about the week-to-week comparisons at the box office. We’re not in a “slump.” Yes, weekend-to-weekend figures have been consistently down behind last year’s respective weekends for much of 2011. But when you look at the numbers on a movie-by-movie basis, you actually notice something wonderful. A flood of mid-budget, adult-skewed movies have opened at or above expectations, and many of them have had the kind of legs you just don’t see anymore. That’s the Hollywood we claim we want, so why are we complaining? The key thing to remember here is that studios don’t care about the total weekend box office figures. They care only about how well their films did in relation to expectations and cost. And quite frankly, this has been a very cheap first 1/3 of a year. Alice in Wonderland may have grossed $332 million domestic, but it also cost $200 million. There are only two films this year that have cost even $100 million, the $120 million-budgeted The Green Hornet (which was supposed to open late last year) and the $130 million-budgeted Rango . One could argue that Rango will struggle financially due to its cost and marketing expenses (it’s cleared $234 million so far worldwide), but it’s also the best film of the year, so there’s that… The Green Hornet was such a surprise success ($228 million worldwide thus far) that we’ll probably get a sequel if Sony can keep the budget at under $90 million. But Battle: Los Angeles didn’t cost $150 million, it cost just $75 million. And Sucker Punch didn’t cost $175 million, it cost $85 million. Sure, both of those films may have underperformed somewhat. Sucker Punch ($78 million worldwide) was an arty experiment that no one understood , while Battle: Los Angeles ($192 million worldwide) promised Independence Day but delivered Black Hawk Down . But even the ‘under performance of Battle: Los Angeles will mean tripling its budget, because Sony was able to deliver top-notch special effects for bargain basement prices. And even Sucker Punch will equal its budget worldwide, meaning that the film has a shot at “the black” once the DVD and Blu-ray are released. Heck, even the relative underperformance of Red Riding Hood will still yield profits, since the gothic horror film cost just $40 million and has grossed $60 million worldwide thus far. Same thing with the would-be franchise starter I Am Number Four . Sure, there probably won’t be a sequel, but since the film cost Disney and Dreamworks just $60 million, it’s a rock-solid hit at $128 million worldwide. Your Highness will lose money, but Universal was smart enough to cap expenses at $50 million, so the bleeding will be minimal. One can argue that there was no animated sensation like How to Train Your Dragon ($494 million worldwide), but How to Train Your Dragon , which cost $165 million, was pretty much the only major animated film in the marketplace during the first half of 2010. This year, just between February and April, we’ll have SIX animated films: Gnomeo and Juliet (a stunning $175 million worldwide on a $30 million budget), Rango , Mars Needs Moms (the one unqualified mom of the season, with just $36 million worldwide on a $150 million budget), Hop ($111 million thus far on a $63 million budget), Rio ($170 million worldwide thus far on a $90 million budget), and Hoodwinked Too (opening in two weeks at a cost of just $25 million). That’s a total cost of $488 million for six animated films (average cost: $81 million), with a total so-far gross of $726 million worldwide thus far (with Hop , Rio , and Hoodwinked having lots of cash to still pull in). Pointing being, the various animated films that have opened to near $40 million have had to fend off copious competition and pretty much all of them are on track to be profitable despite that, because (in most cases) the studios were able to contain costs to a reasonable level. And that’s just the high-profile cartoons and youth-driven would-be blockbusters. The real story this year has been the surge in adult-driven genre pictures and their uncommonly reasonable budgets and uncommonly strong legs. After years where a major adult-targeted, star-driven thriller or genre picture was cause for celebration, this year has thus far been filled with just that. Imagine, films targeted at grownups with old-fashioned movie stars, relatively intelligent and literate screenplays, narratives that were wholly original or based on actual novels, and almost all of them budgeted at a price that allowed them to be profitable without reaching blockbuster status. Source Code (cost: $37 million/worldwide gross: $56 million thus far), The Lincoln Lawyer (cost: $40 million/worldwide gross: $55 million thus far), No Strings Attached ($25m/$144m), Limitless ($27m/$111m), Unknown ($30m/$114m), The Adjustment Bureau ($50m/$111m), Hall Pass ($35m/$63m), and Hanna ($30m/$23m in under three weeks with international still to come). Not all of these films were great, but all of them were moderately-budgeted, most of them received positive reviews, some of them were even R-rated, most of them had moderate opening weekends and solid legs, and all of them will make solid profits in relation to their reasonable costs. Sure none of them reached the heights of Alice in Wonderland or Clash of the Titans , but they never were expected to. And wasn’t it wonderful to have a season where old-fashioned potboilers took precedence over inflated special-effects epics and/or franchise entries? Isn’t it kinda wonderful that the unneeded cash-grab that is Scream 4 will likely get out-grossed (domestically at least) by a $1.5 million haunted house drama starring adult actors (Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne), Insidious , that has dropped less than 30% two weekends in a row due to audience excitement and word of mouth (after three weekends, it’s already at $36 million off of a $13 million opening)? I don’t care if the cumulative weekend takes of these films have often failed to match the respective weekends from last year. Even if we agree that fewer people are going to the movies this year, we must acknowledge that the current crop of movies are much cheaper than years previous, and that they are attracting a consistent crop of older moviegoers, just the sort that have allegedly fled the marketplace. Summer will start next weekend, so the kids will get their big-budget fantasies soon enough and the pundits can all start whining again about how the movies are DOOMED, and everything is a sequel or remake or comic book-adaptation. But we know better, don’t we? If the summer of 2011, with a nonstop deluge of massive films that will arguably have to deliver massive opening weekends, doesn’t deliver expected blockbuster results, then we can start worrying. But the winter/spring of 2011 was not a failure at the box office. It was a successful return of smaller films aimed at adults, films that didn’t make most of their money in the first three days, movies that actually stayed in theaters long enough to allow casual moviegoers to check them out a month or so down the line, movies that existed as a movie first and a corporately-tied product second. Looks to me like 2011 has been a pretty terrific year thus far. One can only hope that summer 2011 is anywhere near as artistically and commercially satisfying…

Read the full article →

Josh Burstein: Shoes and a Slice of MyPi for Several Inner-City Scholars

April 18, 2011

I grew up as the son of an academic, hopping from campus to campus while my father pursued tenure. It was a charmed gypsy life, as I had the pick of the litter of cute undergraduate babysitters. The thought never crossed my mind that I would not go to college. For many inner-city high schoolers, further education is by no means a given. The desire may be there, but an uncomfortable reality tends to get in the way. I live in California, a state heralded for its top-notch public universities, but 47th in state spending per public school student. So while the world looks to the glorious left coast as a dynamic power of industry and culture, its local development of young minds is rather lacking. I don’t know precisely how many of those inner-city kids can see beyond the horizon of a high school diploma, but whatever the number is, it’s clearly not what the promise of America is supposed to mean. That’s why this year my colleague Zach Fishbain and I founded MyPi, the Millennial Youth Professionals Initiative. We’re always hustling after something — we both work in business development to pay the bills. Mentoring an underprivileged 14-year-old, Zach was eager to find a fun activity and leveraged our business contacts at Electronic Arts to take “Andy” through the halls where his favorite video games are made. He met with artists, developers and programmers. Zach couldn’t introduce young Andy to Blake Griffin, but he did introduce him to the men and women that made NBA JAM, the idea being that with a lot of hard work, Andy could do the same some day. At one point during the experience, Andy was very quiet. Pensive. When asked if everything was okay, his soft-spoken response was: “Man, I’m just thinking how I have to make it to college.” Zach raved about the experience the next day, and we started thinking about how we could reach out to inner-city youth and repeat the process on a larger scale — show them firsthand that anything was possible if they stayed in school. So we formed a 501(c)3, leaning on professionals who could guide two fledgling entrepreneurs from a good intention to a realizable venture. Recently, MyPi had its pilot trip, bringing eight kids from south central Los Angeles to TOMS Shoes . We wanted to inspire an entrepreneurial spirit in these middle and high schoolers, and TOMS’ model of conscious capitalism, a “One for One,” was the perfect catalyst. If you don’t know their tale, for each pair of shoes sold, TOMS donates a pair to a child in need — and the shoes are really cool. As the kids arrived, they were mostly quiet. They stuck close to their mentors and chaperones (we envisioned this trip to be a shared experience). Much love to Jake Strom, our contact at TOMS, who conveyed his enthusiasm as he told the stone-faced young crowd the company’s history. Then we toured the facilities. We impressed upon these young minds that work could be fun, not just something that old people drudged through between breakfast and dinner. When the tour ended, they were led into a room filled with shoe boxes — one fresh pair of white kicks for each student. It was a “Style your Sole” party, and as they started to paint, pen and tag their own custom canvas, we brought additional employees from TOMS to talk about their work and how they got there. This was an opportunity for the kids to express themselves outside of the classroom, an open place to get creative and show off their interests. Some young artists showed love for their city, some made stylish cleats for their sport of choice. However poker-faced they were during the tour, they were chatterboxes talking about TOMS the whole way home. Many slapped the TOMS motto on their shoes, along with their names, hoping to start a conversation and tell the story of barefoot children in Africa that had it even harder than they did. Skills have value in the workplace: that was the main message. My hope is that each student understood that he or she has options and that college was the logical next step. As co-founders of a fledgling NGO, Zach and I learned so much from our first event. As we navigate this new world — establishing a board, attracting new companies, constructing an engaging curriculum and partnering with new mentorship programs to fuel our events — our narrative is continuously shaped by all of those involved. And we love the art of improvisation. In a perfect world, teenagers like the initial eight students we brought to TOMS will find internships at the companies we introduce them to, and some day, perhaps, lead new groups of MyPi kids through the halls of a forward-looking company, of which there are many. I’m interested in education reform, and a true believer in the axiom that ingenuity is to be found in all strata of society. So as MyPi explores ways to incubate an entrepreneurial spirit, I open it up to debate how to explore and enlarge this vision. For more content from our trip to TOMS, visit MyPi.org , follow us @mypidotorg and like us .

Read the full article →

Larry MacDonald: Internet Marketing Professional Turns Lead into Gold

April 1, 2011

When it comes to internet marketing, most people think of using search engine optimization to increase traffic to their website for the most general terms that can be used to describe their business. This can result in an increase in traffic but not cause an increase in sales, which is the real goal. You may just work harder, for less money, with more overhead, and have lower job satisfaction through out your company. Most professionals, whether attorneys or dentists, have a hierarchy to their clientele. Each wants business, but prefers certain types of business that may be more profitable, more convenient, reduce stress on limited resources, and provide more and better quality future referrals. Search engine optimization, search engine marketing, internet marketing, whatever you choose to call it can describe a plethora of specific tactics. If you are a professional you want to focus your thinking on selecting the cream, not the milk, and especially not the skim milk. Make a list of the low hanging fruit and give special attention to the most attractive clients. Pick the clients that offer you the most long-term benefits. Which ones will be the most profitable for the effort you expend? Which types will be the easiest to handle for your staff? Which category will give you the most time with your kids? Once you have ranked the types of customers you really would like to work with, you can stop focusing on the entire ocean and focus your your SEO investment using a laser and attract the cream you identified. You will be turning lead into gold. Focusing on narrow niches of highly desirable clients will improve your life and bottom line far faster than attempting to attract everyone who is interested in attorneys, accountants, teeth or construction. Better to build your site to attract estate planning, high net worth individuals, gold bridge work, and luxury contractors. To accomplish this will require sophisticated marketing thinking. You will need an SEO expert who can empathize with your ideal customer. You will need to make major modifications to the content on your site, not just add keywords. It is a marketing approach vs. a technical one. By taking a more focused approach to your internet marketing, you will have far more satisfaction, earn more, have more time for your family, and give your staff greater job satisfaction. Everyone likes to work with the creme de la creme. We know it works because we’ve been doing it for years.

Read the full article →

State Workers/Mega Millons Winners REVEALED

March 31, 2011

SCHENECTADY, N.Y. — The seven state workers from the Albany, N.Y. area who won last week’s $319 million Mega Millions jackpot may have gotten some extra luck from the patience and appetite of the man delegated to buy the winning ticket. Mike Barth was at a newsstand in downtown Albany to buy the random Quick Pick ticket for the group when he decided to pick up a candy bar. “I was at the counter. It was my turn to buy a ticket when I reached down to grab a Snickers bar from the candy display and someone reached over me, actually cut in front of me to buy a ticket,” the 63-year-old from suburban Bethlehem said Thursday. “I thought about saying something but decided to just let it slide. I bought the next ticket.” On Friday night, Barth’s co-worker Gabrielle Mahar, 29, of Colonie, learned that she and her fellow information technology workers at the state Division of Housing and Community Renewal had the winning numbers “I was up late reading and wanted to catch the numbers but missed them. I was dialing up the Lottery website on my phone when the numbers scrolled across the screen. I was dumbfounded,” she said. Word spread quickly among the group. When Leon Peck, 62, of Johnstown got the call Saturday morning, he assumed there must have been a problem at work. “We’re IT people. We get calls all the time about malfunctioning servers so I figured that was why my phone was ringing so early in the morning,” he said. Tracy Sussman, 41, of Colonie said she took the good news call after initially thinking, “What’s wrong now?” The other winners are John Hilton, 57, of North Greenbush; John Kutey, 54, of Green Island; Kristin Baldwin, 42, of Clifton Park. The group said they haven’t decided if they’ll leave their state jobs, but they’ve got plans for things like buying a dishwasher, tires and college educations for their kids. They’re each collecting checks for $19.1 million after taxes. The jackpot was the fifth-largest in the multistate game’s history.

Read the full article →

Albany Passes Historic On-Time Budget Amid Protests

March 31, 2011

MANHATTAN — The state legislature voted to pass an on-time budget in the early morning hours Thursday, overshadowing the opposition of hundreds of protesters whose voices could be heard ringing through the State Capitol’s halls. The State Assembly cast its final vote just after 1 a.m. on the $132.5 billion budget plan, which slashes state spending across the board. “Tonight the Legislature not only passed an on-time budget, but a historic and transformational budget for the people of the state of New York,” Governor Andrew Cuomo said in a statement just after the vote. The budget, which Cuomo has hailed as representing a new era in Albany, reduces spending by more than two percent , including a $1.3 billion cut to local school aid. Negotiations over recent weeks had restored about $250 million in cuts from the governor’s original executive budget . But it wasn’t until late Wednesday night that lawmakers finally came to an agreement about how to divide restorations between district schools. New York City will now receive $51 million, while upstate schools will get $134 million, the AP reported . Legislators scrambled — but failed — to pass the budget by midnight Wednesday to earn the title of having passed the first early budget since 1983. But proponents didn’t complain. “I think we should all be very proud,” said Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, before the body’s session ended at 11:50 p.m. “This budget has chartered a new course,” he said. The Assembly finally adjourned at 1:08 a.m. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who made significant compromises, including giving up the so-called “Millionaires’ Tax” on high-income earners, described the budget as “a sobering one.” He said he hoped the restorations would at least help soften the blow on working families, students, seniors and other vulnerable groups. And he credited Cuomo’s leadership with ushering in the budget on time. Meanwhile, hundreds of activists flocked to the Capitol to voice their opposition, particularly to cuts to education and social services spending. Their chants were so loud that they could be heard echoing through the Assembly and Senate chambers as members debated and cast their votes. “New Yorkers from every part of the state are outraged that the budget will sacrifice our kids’ education in order to give another tax cut to millionaires,” Karen Scharff, executive director of Citizen Action of New York, said in a statement. Ron Deutsch, the executive director of New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness, also favored extending the tax. “His fiscal agenda is more in line with Fox News than with a progressive state like New York,” Deutsch said of the governor, accusing him of “pushed his agenda through the legislature like a loCuomotive, knocking down any opposition in his way.” Following the vote, some of the protesters tried to camp out overnight, curling up in hallways next to colorful placards, photos posted online showed . Senate Democratic Leader John Sampson said he wished that Albany could have done more to protect the state’s most vulnerable citizens and restore more in education aid. “The only reason I voted this,” he said, was “because I trust and have faith in the governor that these choices that we’re making today will put us on the road to fiscal prosperity,” he said. READ MORE AT DNAINFO

Read the full article →

Penny Hoff: Broke Is the New Rich

March 13, 2011

This week I was the recipient of a Barn Raising, but instead of a barn it was my house and instead of a raising it was more of a razing and instead of building a place in which to put my cows, it was more along the lines of preparing the place to try and sell it to avoid The New F Word — foreclosure. Until you’ve had a chance to see friends in action the way I have this week, you cannot fully appreciate the definition of the word friendship. It is true; when crisis strikes, we find out who our true friends are. Often if a crisis is bad enough, like when there’s a terrible illness or injury or even worse, when a loved one dies, our friends want to rally around — they are wringing their hands, wanting to do something, anything. The truth is that most times, when an accident or injury or illness or death happens, there’s so little for the people who love us, to do . But in our house-crisis situation, there was not just one thing to do, but about 987 things that my friends not only could do, but they really wanted to do. They fixed those hundreds of wrong things with my house in a record breaking week of dumping, scrubbing, scraping, dumping, moving, pruning, dumping, rearranging, painting and did I mention dumping? After eight days of overtime back-breaking work, the end result was that my house was a House Makeover; so Extreme it could be a hit reality show. But not Extreme only in the result but also Extreme in that my friends, who’s health and fitness has always been my business, now were making my house their business. Author Deborah Underwood said, there are many kinds of Quiet: first awake Quiet, jelly-side down Quiet, don’t scare the baby robins Quiet, car ride at night Quiet. In that same line of thinking, there are many kinds of Broke: the I forgot my wallet and can’t stop at Starbucks Broke, the I’m in college and temporarily Broke, the Homeless Shelter Broke and now, there’s a new kind of Broke — the I thought we were rich but now there’s no job and should we send our kids to college or pay the mortgage Broke. So, it was time to sell our heart, I mean, our home, even though none of us were ready — not our 18-year-old son, who will leave our nest next September, and certainly not our 16-year-old twins who only have one year left at the high school in this school district where they’ve attended since kindergarten. And certainly not me. Beyond not wanting to clean out eighteen years of clutter and cluttered memories from the basement to the attic — an idea both overwhelming and paralyzing — I felt the heartbreak of leaving every time a neighbor walked or drove by our house. Ask anyone on my street, I am the mayor. I also used to be the Bike Whisperer, having taught every child on our avenue to ride a bike. I’m the Grand Poo-Bah of Halloween parades, the Pet Pastor of dog funerals, and the Maestro of Talent Shows. I soothe myself by reading the paper and reminding myself that this predicament is not the humiliating event that it would’ve been ten years ago. Today, we are a statistic; we are one in every six families in the country. We are no longer the upper middle class. As a matter of fact I saw a frightening chart the other day that put our family of five under the poverty line. We are poor . Shocking to me, but nothing new in 2011. But something unprecedented happened since last Wednesday. In the words of author Gene O’Kelly, not only have I let go of something precious but I’ve also gained something precious, and that is the palpable sense of being carried by my community when I couldn’t walk through this letting go process by myself. How precious the feeling of neighbors reaching out and helping in ways that used to be acceptable (when was the last time you asked your neighbor for even a cup of sugar?). This week, no one rang the doorbell. They just marched in and got down on their knees and started scrubbing. It took me a week to find out who painted the corner of the bathroom where my two teenage boys had missed the target for the past six years. It turned out to be my neighbors who went in there and anonymously redid that bathroom. They get the MVP (Most Vile Painting) award. Longtime friends built shelves, threw out my too-big-for-my-kitchen fridge and loaned me couches, a dining room set, patio furniture and plants to freshen up the place. Other neighbors arrived with lottery tickets in the hopes that I’d win and get to stay! Such an amazing gift, my friends have given me. In the weirdest way, my house is now the most livable it has ever been, only because my friends have helped me, in the most radical way, to make it the most sell-able. I normally blog about fitness and I’ve always said that fitness can be a metaphor for life and what applies to life also applies to fitness — when we least feel like walking the walk is when it most matters. And from the dirt can arise the most beautiful of flowers. This week, I have been given the gift of community and friendship that almost (almost) eclipses the loss that I will feel leaving this street and this house. I should also mention that releasing the bondage of all my “stuff’ is very similar to the experience of shedding unwanted pounds. We start to feel what it feels like to be free of unnecessary weight that we didn’t know was weighing us down until it was gone. Finally, we can breathe. So if this is the way it feels to be Broke, then I am the Richest Broke Girl in all of history. Bring it on.

Read the full article →

Ron Ashkenas: Turn Down the Volume on Yelling!

March 11, 2011

Have you ever observed an interaction between two people who speak different languages? Oftentimes, they speak louder and louder as the conversation progresses — unconsciously hoping that turning up the volume will cause the other person to eventually get the message. Increasing decibel levels is usually not the key to effective communications . Yet many managers still rely on dialing up “virtual volume” when persuading subordinates or peers. We’ve all seen managers who do this in various ways, such as sending belligerent or nasty emails ; enlisting others to exert pressure ; escalating disputes to higher levels; pulling rank; or threatening to derail a career . You’ve also probably seen managers use these techniques with suppliers or customers — trying to get them to change terms, conditions, or prices. The reality is that speaking louder is usually a symptom of frustration, like when an exasperated parent yells at a misbehaving child. It’s a last resort when calm, rational arguments haven’t worked . But when things reach this stage, communication deteriorates rapidly . Frustration and anger affect the yeller like an internal static, making it difficult for him to understand anyone else. And the raised volume — while it might force the subordinate, colleague, or customer to give in — certainly doesn’t increase real understanding or acceptance of the message. In the long term, this kind of behavior creates fear, distrust, and suspicion — not a good foundation for future understanding or problem solving. It’s easy to say that managers in organizations shouldn’t act this way, just like we say that parents shouldn’t yell at their kids . But organizations are made up of flawed human beings — and all of us struggle with effective communication . So what can you do to deal with a loss of volume control either in yourself or others? Let me suggest two simple steps: 1. Tune up your sound meter: The first step in dealing with organizational yelling is to recognize when it is occurring, either in yourself or others. As mentioned earlier, managers often use various types of “virtual volume” to shout at one another in ways that can be silent. In the absence of real noise, you need to be alert for the signs of volume disorders such as projects that are stalled, decisions that are never made, and managers or departments that tend to blame each other for problems or just don’t seem to get along. Here’s a quick example: In a large financial services company, a key systems project was months behind schedule with nobody taking responsibility for the delays. When asked, the business teams said that IT “couldn’t get anything done,” and the IT people reported that the business arm “didn’t know what they wanted.” As this kind of quiet shouting continued, project meetings eventually deteriorated into detailed task reviews with no real discussions about how to get the effort back on track. Eventually as the lack of progress escalated, the head of the division realized that the business and IT people were shouting, but not really talking. 2. Restart and reframe the discussion: Once you realize that a shouting match is underway (even if you are part of it), you need to get the parties to step back, turn off the megaphones, and start the discussion all over again. In doing so, you should begin with the premise that no one is to blame and that a shouting match does not serve any purpose. Instead, start from the end-point and work backwards as a team: What are we trying to accomplish? What’s our shared organizational goal? What do we need to do to accomplish that goal? In the financial services case, the division executive insisted that the IT and business teams (ten people) spend a full day recalibrating the project. With the help of a facilitator, the group focused first on the goal of the project. As the business people talked about their current products and what they hoped to do differently as a result of this systems change, some of the IT people began to realize that there was a completely different — and much easier — way to satisfy the business need. Six weeks later the first customer transaction was successfully concluded and the new revenue stream was underway. Of course not every shouting match is defused as easily as this one. But by recognizing that the volume has been turned up and reframing the conversation in terms of a shared goal, you’ll have a much better chance of making progress. Otherwise — like those two people speaking different languages — you’ll just keep talking louder and louder. Cross-posted from Harvard Business Online [For more, visit the Communication Insight Center .]

Read the full article →

Randall Kempner: Dharavi, India: The Most Entrepreneurial Slum In The World?

March 11, 2011

If you’ve watched the opening scenes of Slumdog Millionaire, you’ve seen Dharavi, a teeming slum of nearly a million people in the heart of Mumbai. I’m just back from India, including a visit to Dharavi. And, let me assure you, the film was shot on location. Walking into the slum from Mahim Link Road, poverty slaps you in the face. Ramshackle buildings made of a mélange of found materials and corrugated tin line unpaved passageways. Open sewage runs through the alleys, collecting in puddles alongside playing children. There is only one public toilet per approximately 1,500 residents, and most families have neither the means nor the space to have a private bathroom. So, the site of kids relieving themselves in public fields is depressingly common. But at second glance, the slum is more intriguing and–much more encouraging. Despite the low education levels, substandard housing, and intense overcrowding, Dharavi is a veritable entrepreneurial hotspot.

Read the full article →

5 Popular Tax Breaks On The Brink Of Extinction

March 10, 2011

It’s tax season. Although keeping tabs on the details of income and expenses can be a little dreadful, filers have plenty to look forward to when Uncle Sam hands out that refund. There are countless deductions to take advantage of to lower your tax burden — and they’re not just for the uber rich. From buying a home to putting your kids in college, taxpayers can deduct or receive credit on many items. But leverage the opportunities now. Many popular tax breaks are set to either expire or scale back as the government’s stimulus package from 2009 winds down. With the help of the Tax Institute at H&R Block, Fortune lists five tax favored breaks approaching extinction. Get ‘em while they last.

Read the full article →

Ohio Governor Predicts Anti-Union Bill Will Become Law

March 4, 2011

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Gov. John Kasich said Friday that he anticipates the Legislature will pass a tough bill restricting union activity by public workers in Ohio and that he’ll sign it into law with little fanfare, out of respect for the raw emotions surrounding the bill. The measure – which still has to go through the GOP-led House – would limit the bargaining rights of roughly 350,000 teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public employees. They wouldn’t be able to negotiate health care benefits or certain other working conditions. “The day we sign it, it’s not going to be some – you know, I don’t anticipate some big deal because this is hard for people,” Kasich told reporters at a separate bill-signing event. “And anything that’s hard, I want to be respectful of other people’s feelings, their thoughts and their emotions.” Unlike with similar legislation being debated in Wisconsin, Republicans in Ohio managed to move the bill quickly through the state Senate. The bill was narrowly approved Wednesday on a 17-16 vote. “Glad it passed,” Kasich said, adding that he wasn’t surprised. Wisconsin’s measure remains in limbo in the GOP-controlled Legislature after the 14 Senate Democrats fled to Illinois two weeks ago to deprive the chamber of a quorum. In Ohio, Republicans hold big enough majorities in both chambers to vote on the bill and pass it even if the Democrats walk out. “It’s going to go in the House; it’s going to pass there,” Kasich said at the event, where guests included House Speaker William Batchelder. Under the bill, unionized public workers in Ohio could negotiate wages, hours and certain work conditions – but not health care or pension benefits. The measure would do away with automatic pay raises and base future wage increases on merit. It also would ban strikes by public workers and establish penalties for those who do participate in walkouts. Batchelder is looking to have at least three weeks of hearings on the bill – which would carry the debate into late March. His spokesman Mike Dittoe said the House leader wants it to be a “deliberative and extensive process.” The House is scheduled to hold three days of hearings next week, as representatives start to review the bill. The measure has been pitched as part of Kasich’s remedy for an $8 billion budget gap, though it is not written by the governor. He has said changes to collective bargaining would give power back to state and local government managers to keep costs low. Kasich said his message to union families is: “What we are doing in this state is designed to make sure that your kids have a future in this state.” He said it wasn’t an attack on working families, nor “a political operation.” “I could care less about the politics,” he said. “This is what is part of an overall plan to help fix our state.” Kasich on Tuesday in fundraising e-mails urged his supporters to call their elected officials and ask them to back the collective bargaining bill. The Ohio Democratic Party has also sent out fundraising e-mails, urging donations from the bill’s opponents. The legislation has drawn pro-labor protesters and tea party activists to the Statehouse. The crowd on Tuesday topped more than 8,500. The measure has prompted a visit by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and former Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland has pledged to lead a ballot repeal if the bill passes. Kasich said he wasn’t concerned with a possible ballot repeal. “The Scripture says there’s enough trouble today, don’t worry about tomorrow,” he said. “I ain’t even thinking about some darn referendum in 2000-you know, the end of, whenever, November, whenever it is. Just let me take care of today.”

Read the full article →

Bill Gates On States’ Accounting: ‘The Guys At Enron Never Would Have Done This’

March 3, 2011

LONG BEACH, Calif. — During a second appearance onstage at the annual TED conference , Bill Gates spoke out against worsening state budget deficits caused by accounting “tricks” he said would make Enron’s former executives blush. The Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist said state budgets have received a puzzling lack of scrutiny and have been “riddled with gimmicks” aimed at deferring or disguising the true costs of public employees’ health care and pension obligations, citing California’s ongoing budget crisis as an example of creative deficit spending and the subsequent cuts to education spending as an unacceptable cost. “[R]eally, when you get down to it, the guys at Enron never would have done this. This is so blatant, so extreme,” Gates said of state governments’ accounting practices generally. “Is anyone paying attention to some of the things these guys do? They borrow money — they’re not supposed to, but they figure out a way — they make you pay more in withholding to help their cashflow out, they sell off the assets, they defer the payments, they sell off the revenues from tobacco.” Gates argued that government accounting practices should be more like private accounting. “The amount of IQ and good numeric analysis both inside Google and Microsoft and outside … really is quite phenomenal. Everybody has an opinion. There’s great feedback and the numbers are used to make the decision,” he said. “If you go over to the education spending and health care spending … you don’t have that type of involvement on a number that’s more important in terms of equity and in terms of learning.” The former Microsoft chief executive, now the co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, said youth and education programs stand to lose the most as a result of the gaping holes in state budgets. “It really is the young versus the old to some degree. If you don’t solve what you’re doing in health care, you’re going to be deinvesting in the young,” Gates said. “With the kind of cuts we’re talking about, it will be far, far harder to get these incentives for excellence or to move over to use technology in the new way.” Remedying state budget crises will take better accounting, better tools, and more respect for leaders who step up to address these problems, Gates argued. “We need to reward politicians,” he said. “Whenever they say there are these long-term problems, we can’t say, ‘Oh, you’re the messenger with bad news? We just shot you.’” The bottom line, according to Gates: “We need to care about state budgets because they are critical for our kids and our future.” Get the latest updates from TED here .

Read the full article →

Jamie Court: Will Google Maps New Street View Tricycles Take Pictures of Our Kids’ Playground?

March 2, 2011

Should our right to privacy be sacrificed so Google can make billions of dollars off images of us and our things? Google's grand experiment in photographing the world's places for Google Maps has taken its “street view” cameras off-road with new hi-tech tricycles equipped with 360 degree view cameras to photograph the back roads, parks, college paths and inner sanctums of our world. The engineer's latest design raises the question: What will Google be capturing on its backroad tour that people don't want seen?

Read the full article →

Richard Kirsch: Country Wisdom From Tennessee: Jobs Trump Deficits

March 2, 2011

Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 . Democrats looking for a message don’t need to hunt any further than Tuesday’s New York Times , where a 67-year-old retiree from Tennessee lays it out real clear. In an interview with the Times , after being polled on attitudes towards public employees, Phil Merritt said: “I just feel they do a job that needs to be done, and in our country today if you work hard, then you should be able to have a home, be able to save for retirement and you should be able to send your kids to college. Most public employees have to struggle to do those things, and generally both spouses must work.” Merritt got it all in there — if you work hard you should be able to have a home, a retirement and send your kids to college, a simple reminder of the core of the middle class American Dream. And he told us what’s changed too: it’s now a struggle to keep a toehold in the middle class, even with both spouses working. The Times quoted Merritt because he did a good job summarizing the view of most Americans on the question of whether worries about the deficit trump concerns about good jobs. The answer was a resounding no . The Times poll found that large majorities of independents and Democrats, as well as majorities of those in non-union households, opposed cutting the pay or benefits of public workers to reduce deficits. Unfortunately that’s what the unions in Wisconsin have actually agreed to do. But where they have drawn the line is on giving up on their rights to bargain in the future for their piece of the American pie. If most Americans understand that it is foolish to cut the deficit by cutting people’s ability to make a decent living, the poll also discovered that people are willing to pay more to protect those jobs and the services those workers provide. By margins of two to one, people were more willing to raise taxes than cut benefits for state workers or financing for roads or schools. Of course, that’s not what most governors are doing. Wisconsin’s Walker created the immediate state fiscal crisis by giving new tax breaks to business. In New York, Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo is proposing reducing taxes for the wealthy at the same time he wants to slash funding for public education. For a simple explanation of why the governors and Republicans in Congress have it wrong, and another lesson for Democrats in messaging, we can turn again to a recent article in the Times . Last Friday, Bob Herbert concluded his column with a quote from one of those Americans who got kicked out of the middle class during the recession. Lynda Hiller, a woman from Allentown, PA, lost her home after her husband lost the job he had for 35 years as a long-distance truck driver. Hiller told Herbert, “I don’t think things are going to get any better. I think we’re going to hit rock bottom. The big shots are in charge, and they just don’t give a darn about the little person.” Those big shots, like the Koch brothers and all the other corporations and wealthy that engage in the legal bribery we dignify with the name “campaign contributions,” have made it clear that their agenda is to do for public employees what corporate America has done for so many private workers: drive down pay, cut benefits and kill unions. But this is really a good news story — it’s good news when powerful, progressive messages that work can be found in the voices of ordinary Americans in the day’s news. As we’re seeing in Wisconsin, people around America are finding their voices. Progressive organizations are coming together around some simple ideas: a strong America is built on a strong middle class; we need to reclaim the American dream from those who have stolen it. And some Democratic elected officials — like the Wisconsin 14 — are finding that it’s good politics to be courageous in defense of an America that works for all of us.

Read the full article →

Rex Flexibility: Approaching Retirement Age And Still Doing The Work-Life Juggle?

February 26, 2011

We hear a lot about the struggles modern parents face in juggling work and family needs. Meeting the demands of today’s 24-hour, Blackberry-fueled workplace and still finding time for your kids (let alone time for yourself ) can seem next to impossible. But here’s the thing that should really scare every busy, overworked parent: It doesn’t get any easier. For the majority of Americans, the dream of shipping your kids off to college and retiring to an oceanfront condo has become just that — a dream. Most seniors today find themselves still struggling to balance the demands of work and family. Older workers make up a larger portion of the workforce than ever before , with many people working full-time well into their 60s and 70s, either because they enjoy their jobs and want to keep contributing, or simply because they don’t have enough savings to retire securely. On top of this, older workers have increased family responsibilities, too. The majority of children now grow up in families in which both parents work full-time, meaning that grandparents take on a larger role in childcare. What’s more, with people aged 18 to 26 hit harder than anyone else by the recession , many parents now find themselves still providing financially for their grown children, right when they expected to be easing into their own retirement. Add in the fact that seniors often need to devote significant time to their health and well-being, not to mention personal pursuits such as volunteering in one’s community, and it should be clear that the work-life juggle doesn’t stop, or even slow down, just because you’ve hit 62 (or 72 or 82). So what do we do about it? The answer is that we have to change the way we work. The traditional, rigid structure of the workplace, where every employee works full-time, year-in and year-out, with few opportunities for time off or adjusted schedules, doesn’t work very well for anyone anymore. But it’s particularly problematic for seniors who have already been running this grueling work-life marathon for 40 or 50 years and are told that their only options are to stop altogether or keep going at the same pace. Companies need to provide new options that embrace the expertise and experience of our older employees and allow them to contribute to their workplaces while still living a balanced life. Many companies have already introduced such options, including phased retirement, job sharing and flexible work arrangements that provide for shorter hours, alternative schedules or increased time off. Older workers frequently report that such arrangements are even more important than salary, which makes this an ideal change for cash-strapped companies that can’t offer raises right now. However, only a small percentage of older workers have such options at their disposal. A recent survey from Cornell University found that 73 percent of companies say they would permit an older worker to reduce hours, but only 14 percent had formal policies that allow for this to happen. If we want to ensure that our workplaces remain productive as our population rapidly ages, this has to change. By 2015, workers over 65 will constitute 20 percent of the workforce, and they already make up an increasingly large percentage of managers, supervisors and executives. Yet most employers have not developed strategies for retaining these employees. Without increased opportunities for workplace flexibility, we are going to see more and more older workers hitting a wall and feeling like they can’t continue. This isn’t just about respecting our elders. It’s about crafting workplaces that keep employees happy and engaged, and giving employers the chance to keep productive, efficient people in the workforce longer. There may no longer be a set age at which Americans can expect to stop doing the work-life juggle, but with the proper planning, we can make sure everyone is able to juggle successfully.

Read the full article →

Dan Solin: Investing Charlie Sheen Style

February 16, 2011

Even die-hard Charlie Sheen fans must have been appalled at news reports that he asked a porn star to babysit his two young daughters. His ex-wife, Denise Richards, expressed the views of most of us when she twitted that “no adult film star will be babysitting our kids.” Don’t be too quick to criticize Mr. Sheen’s appalling judgment. Most of you are not doing any better when you pick an investment adviser. Jay Franklin brought home this point in a thoughtful recent blog. Mr. Franklin finds it odd that you would entrust your life savings to firms with a demonstrated history of ethical and moral (if not literal) bankruptcy. He supports this position with the following examples, which are a modest sampling of the indefensible conduct passing for another day at the office of significant players in the financial world: 1. Merrill Lynch paid $10 million to settle claims it used order flow from its customers to trade and profit for its own account ; 2. The Bank of New York allegedly overcharged a Virginia pension plan according to allegations in a complaint filed by the state. It is alleged to have done so by converting $12.5 million of pension money to Canadian dollars at the highest exchange rate and then passing on the proceeds to the pension plan at the lowest exchange rate, and (of course) pocketing the difference. A very slick move, if proven. 3. Similar allegations against Bank of New York are being investigated by the Florida state pension plan. California has commenced its own investigation into foreign currency practices of State Street. The defendants deny all charges. 4. J.P. Morgan must be one of the few winners who dealt with Bernie Madoff. It quietly withdrew $276 million in profits shortly below Madoff’s collapse. It is now the defendant in a $6.4 billion lawsuit, filed by the tenacious trustee for the Madoff mess. The lawsuit alleges that J.P. Morgan was “thoroughly complicit” in Madoff’s fraud. J.P. Morgan denies the allegations. I join Mr. Franklin in wondering why investors deal with firms that have conducted business in this manner. It should be enough that they lack the ability to intelligently manage money (their own or others). You would think the total lack of a moral compass — standing alone — would cause you to flee from their offices. There is no evidence this is happening. Before you judge Mr. Sheen, take a hard look at the way you invest. You may find your judgment is no better than his. The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.

Read the full article →

Naveen Jain: Manage Your Company’s Online Identity — Or The Competition Will Manage It For You

February 15, 2011

Your LinkedIn profile is diligently maintained, your blog is free of comment spam, and you tell your kids to wipe their Facebook pages clean of party photos. You work hard to maintain control of your personal online identity. But do you give the same attention to how your business is portrayed online? The online identity, or “o-dentity,” of your business can help or hinder its bottom line. Yet, too many executives fail to safeguard their company’s online reputation. If you allow disgruntled customers or bloggers with a grudge to speak out unhindered about your company, rest assured your competitors will pounce on this opportunity to spread the (negative) word. Following are the five most common mistakes top executives make regarding the management of their company’s o-dentity, and some advice on taking control to prevent a downward spiral. 1) Delegating o-dentity and holding steadfast to the “it’s not my job” attitude. Many top executives see managing the link between CEO voice and corporate brand as something their PR and marketing firms do, along with managing a blog and the company’s Twitter feed – that’s why you hired them, right? However, control of a company’s online reputation can no longer be outsourced without further thought — or worse, kicked downstairs to IT and the SEO management team. Noise from the online world is too loud, complicated, and fast-moving to delegate this task. CEOs need to proactively communicate with potential customers or investors in social media outlets such as blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. If you’re not making a connection between your voice and views as a CEO, and your company’s brand, you’ll become a corporate dinosaur. Think of Steve Jobs and Apple Computer, or Jeff Bezos at Amazon, execs who truly live and breathe their brands. The presence and voice of the CEO is now more important to branding than the right logo, tagline or campaign. 2) Clinging to one-way communication with customers. In the old days (that is, before 2003 or so), you talked to your customers and they didn’t talk back – or at least they didn’t talk back in a way that could result in a crisis in a matter of hours. If customers were unhappy, they called customer service, their problem was solved, and the CSR rep closed the file – end of the story. Nowadays, customer communications has morphed from a one-way street into a multi directional super highway, and CEOs who ignore this fact do so at significant peril. Top executives who are engaged with customers and online influencers on a daily basis can rectify problems before they turn into crises. To get a handle on the dialogue surrounding your company, you need to spend time reviewing the top 10 thought-leader blogs and Twitter feeds covering your industry – don’t rely on summaries from assistants or wait until they tell you about the negative buzz. You and your company should be engaged daily in two-way conversation with the top influencers in your industry, whether these are executives of other businesses or vocal customers. Granted, this won’t be an easy transition for executives who aren’t comfortable with such direct (and possibly confrontational) contact with influencers – it’s easier to deliver a speech and be done with it. Nevertheless, you need to ask questions and listen to what influencers are saying. Don’t talk “at” people — talk “with” them. 3) Underestimating the power of insights from unhappy customers. Building on the last point, not all CEOs are willing to accept the fact that today the power of one voice – that is, a customer – can provide valuable insights on products and services. Before social media changed the world, a disappointed consumer could only tell a handful of other people about their experience. Today, one viral posting about lousy service (like the infamous recording of an AOL member’s argument with a customer service rep) can result in thousands of social media posts or even stories in The New York Times or Wall Street Journal . Learn from Dell’s example of retooling customer service: After getting hammered in the blogosphere about poor response to online customer complaints, Dell created a “social media swat team” that monitored blogs for negative posts about Dell’s products. The posts are routed to this team, which can then quickly respond before the negative post gains traction. And be proactive: Don’t wait for complaints to come in through the toll-free number before you do anything about them – contact unhappy customers before they can negatively influence other customers. Airlines, often roundly criticized for poor service, are getting smarter about fast response to customer problems via Twitter and other social networks. Delta Air Lines now has a special team, @DeltaAssist , that monitors Twitter for passenger complaints. 4) Believing that customers understand the difference between The Wall Street Journal and a blogger. Executives think consumers can differentiate between a respected media outlet like The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times – whose staff are governed by a code of ethics, and whose lawyers ensure reportage is fair and accurate – and a blogger with a few readers who could be backed by your competition. Today everyone with a Internet access can be a “journalist,” regardless of whether they have had training and answer to a team of editors, or simply started a blog using free software. Don’t assume consumers can discern the nuances of journalism – if your customers take bloggers or Twitter users seriously, then you should too. When Sean Parker, an entrepreneur and the first president of Facebook, was concerned at how his portrayal in the movie “The Social Network” was damaging his online reputation, he didn’t just sit still. He reached out to Henry Blodget, CEO of the online business publication Business Insider and a Huffington Post columnist, to tell his side of the story . Thanks to Blodget’s posts, as well as tweets to his 24,000+ followers, Parker was able to present an alternate picture of his life and accomplishments. 5) Sending out inconsistent messages to external and internal audiences. Do you tell customers that you pride yourself on exemplary customer service, then fail to offer them a toll-free number for questions so they can speak with a real person? Do you proclaim your company as an innovator, yet tell your employees that you’re pulling back on R&D? You need to represent the company internally in the same way you do to your customers. Two excellent examples come to mind: Nordstrom and Gilt Groupe . Nordstrom is legendary for its in-store customer service, and has successful extended this experience to the web. Likewise, Gilt Groupe, the discount designer fashion website, projects an image of exclusivity and stellar customer service. Both embrace consistent messaging. There’s no disconnect, because the image is reality. When you make a mistake — like shoe retailer Kenneth Cole did recently by tweeting, “Millions are in uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is they heard our new spring collection is now available online,” — quickly apologize and communicate that the message is at odds with the company’s image, both inside and out. Cole tweeted : “I apologize to everyone who was offended by my insensitive tweet about the situation in Egypt. I’ve dedicated my life to raising awareness about serious social issues, and in hindsight my attempt at humor regarding a nation liberating themselves against oppression was poorly timed and absolutely inappropriate.” Avoiding the “don’ts” above can help you gain visibility into and control of the online dialogue surrounding your company. Remember, if you don’t take charge of your o-dentity, the competition will be happy to do it for you.

Read the full article →

Learning To Walk: Fear, Shame And Your Underwater Mortgage

February 3, 2011

WASHINGTON — Nearly one in every four homeowners across the country owe more on their home than it’s worth. Once a month, those 10.8 million are faced with a question that cuts to the core of the American Dream and offers a confusing collision between a deep-seated sense of personal obligation and a cold, simple business calculation: Should I pay my mortgage? For decades, there was only one answer for most people: Of course I should keep paying, it’s the right thing to do. Besides, the argument went, a home is a great investment. Today, in the wake of the most seismic housing collapse in the nation’s history, that logic has increasingly been challenged by homeowners despondent about their lack of options. Although researchers find that some underwater borrowers who could continue paying their mortgages strategically default anyway, the vast majority continue to pay. Many homeowners, out of a combined sense of fear, shame, courage and morality, resist making what is otherwise a logical financial decision. Walking away from a home, however, is more than the sum of a few business decisions. For many homeowners, it’s either an act of civic defiance against a system they no longer buy into or the end result of being shuffled around by institutions that don’t help them solve their financial problems. While walking away is a frightening and dangerous step into the unknown, millions have beaten the path in the past few years. To find out what it’s like to walk away, The Huffington Post asked readers who were considering making the move, or who had already done so, to write in and share their stories. That was in January 2010. A year later, we followed up with them to see how they reflected on the experience. We initially heard from 58 people from all over the country who fit the criteria. Ten of them have become unreachable over the past year, but the remaining 48 were eager to share their stories. A year later, only eight of them are still paying their mortgage. Some requested anonymity because of the shame associated with foreclosure; others requested it because they don’t want to draw retribution from the banks. But there were those who were happy to share their tales on the record. Almost universally, the homeowners we spoke with took personal responsibility for their situations, declining to blame the banks or politicians. Yet nearly all of them faced similar struggles in their attempts to work with their banks: lost paperwork and little interest in finding a financial compromise. The hostility people felt from their banks made the decision to walk away easier for many, and some now even revel in it, celebrating a break from a system they see as rigged against them. “We get daily calls from creditors and banks that threaten this and that, and I just laugh knowing I am helping to bring down the system that has brought us all down and continues to reap giant profits at the expense of the little guy,” said one. Others are still haunted with shame by the decision. Most said they felt a mix of both. Many of the homeowners said they felt alone and powerless in their interactions with the banks and were curious to hear what other people in similar situations had to say. “There should be support groups for people who have to deal with these banks,” said Richmond Burton, 50, a soon-to-be-former resident of Long Island’s East Hampton. “It can drive you crazy. I’m very good at dealing with pressure, and they made it feel like you’re at their mercy.” Following Burton’s suggestion, HuffPost contacted Meetup.com and set up the infrastructure for underwater homeowners to do just that. This coming Tuesday, homeowners across the country can use Meetup’s tool to organize small gatherings of homeowners who have walked away or who have considered doing it. Often, the best advice comes from a neighbor. Burton’s effort to get out from under his home became a second job, he said. “I never would have thought that the American Dream was to not own a home, but that’s what mine became. I’m not ever going to take another mortgage. If I can avoid it, I’m not ever going to borrow money again,” said Burton. After years of failing to get approval for a “short sale” of his home, or even a decent mortgage modification, Burton said he stopped paying in August 2009 to help himself financially and to get his bank’s attention. (A short sale occurs when lenders accept a sum less than the outstanding value than a mortgage loan, in lieu of forcing a borrower into foreclosure.) He contacted HuffPost several months later and said he was still trying to get a short sale approved or persuade the bank to take the house in exchange for simply letting him walk away. The bank was refusing. When we reconnected a year later, he said he had just signed documents that would let him walk away without a penalty, but he was forfeiting his $120,000 down payment. What did it feel like to walk away from that much money? “It feels great,” Burton said without hesitation. “I’m starting again. I’ve still got my talent, I’ve got my intelligence. I’ve got my health. At least I’m free of the enormous amount of stress that I had and the frustration of doing the best I could and it wasn’t good enough. It wasn’t working. Ultimately, I made a decision that my physical and mental health was more valuable than this house and my investment in it.” Burton went more than a year without paying his mortgage before persuading the bank to accept a short sale. “The mortgage company was not wiling to work with me. The businesses that we have created to serve us are enslaving us. They’re not listening to us, they don’t even pretend to care about us. Really, our only option is to do what I’m doing, which is to fire them all. I’m doing everything I can to remove them from my life,” he said. Lenders and servicers say such decisions will destroy borrowers’ credit record and render them non-entities in the U.S. economy. Burton said that when he bought his Long Island home in 2000, his credit score had been somewhere in the 600s, an average figure. He allowed HuffPost to run his credit score through Equifax, one of three major credit-monitoring bureaus. As of Tuesday, after his ordeal of three years, his score is 614 — below average, but not savaged. A few months ago, he had no trouble buying an iPhone. He ignores the many credit card solicitations that come his way. The purpose of HuffPost’s investigation was not to determine who or what was to blame for the predicament that the homeowners found themselves in or whether they are deserving of sympathy — twin concerns that dominate the foreclosure discussion and will no doubt continue with ferocity in the comment section below this story. Our question was more direct: What are the costs and benefits of walking away from an underwater mortgage — not for the banks or the neighborhood or for society as a whole, but for the real people making the decision? MORAL STRUGGLE When Ernie Soto first wrote HuffPost, his mechanic business was falling apart and he was behind on his mortgage. Efforts to modify his loan had gone nowhere and he was considering filing for bankruptcy, walking away and buying a mobile trailer for his family to live in. “We laugh about it now, but we went through hell and back and back to hell,” he said a year later, after filing for bankruptcy and telling the bank it could have the house. Rock bottom came when he drove to the local vet to have his dog put to sleep. The repo man was in the parking lot. “I can’t leave until I take your truck,” he told Soto, 47. “It was just another low moment in our lives,” Soto said. Soto drained his savings paying the mortgage so he could keep his credit score high and maintain hope that a loan would come through for his small business. But it never did. Shortly after writing to HuffPost at the beginning of 2010, he and his family walked away. “We’d had enough. We moved to a trailer park, a mobile home. We bought my dad’s RV, figured we’ve gotta live somewhere.” Technically, Soto still owns his home and he routinely finds gigantic bills in his mail. At this point, he says, he can only chuckle darkly at the letters. The bank doesn’t seem to understand that he has walked away, that he’s done with them. Had he realized it would take his bank so long to foreclose, he said, he could have stayed in his house for free, but he was afraid that his bank would move faster than the guy who repossessed his truck. And didn’t want to put his family through the trauma of an eviction. “I was in unfamiliar territory. I don’t lose houses every so often,” he said. “I was thinking it’d be like the car, they’d come throw me out in three months.” Soto, a conservative Republican, said he has come to terms with his choice. “It was a tough decision. We thought about it and thought about it. I want to do the honorable thing, but wait a minute here — I didn’t get respect from the mortgage companies when I was asking for help. I didn’t get respect from the banks when I was asking for help. Now here we are, we bailed everybody out,” he said. “Am I just supposed to be the good Samaritan and just stay there? I asked the mortgage company, ‘What’s gonna keep me from giving you the keys?’” Banks are responding to that question by using their power in Washington — influence purchased with the checks people send to their banks each month — to make it financially tougher to liberate oneself from an underwater mortgage, just as millions are on the brink of making their break. ‘THERE IS SUCH A THING IN THE BIBLE’ Shelley Kluz said she saw a house in her neighborhood just like her own selling for $90,000. “It made me sick to my stomach, because we were already house-poor,” she said of the place she and her husband paid $325,000 for in 2004. Her husband, she said, wanted to cling to the house, but she wanted out, with three kids in a 960-square-foot home in Vacaville, Calif. “It was a big moral decision for us. We talked to our pastor, talked to our parents and had a really hard time coming to grips with the idea that we might not pay our mortgage, because we were always the people who paid their bills,” she said. The pastor said that if making the payments was harming the family, it was okay to walk away. “There is such a thing in the Bible as debt forgiveness,” she said. “We didn’t want to get in bad with God, doing something morally He thinks is awful.” In July 2009, on the informal advice of a bank representative, the Kluzes stopped paying their mortgage to encourage their bank to approve a short sale. The bank initially accepted a short sale offer, but the couple was told that investors had later rejected it. The bank suggested Shelley Kluz apply for a modification, apparently unaware she’d been trying for the past year. She did so anyway and was rejected. The family was still in the house when she wrote to HuffPost in early 2010. “We are in a weird limbo state of waiting. So, long story short, we are walking away. We are so fed up with this whole process,” she wrote at the time. Six months later, she and her family moved out, a year after they stopped paying. For $1,550, she said, they now rent a three-bedroom, two-bath home with a yard in the front and back — a feature their first home, with a monthly mortgage payment of $2,250, did not have. The new home is twice the size of the old one with twice as many bathrooms. Their old home was foreclosed upon a month after they left and, Shelley Kluz said, is still on the market for $142,000. They only moved five minutes away, she said, and she still drives by it occasionally. Her 7-year-old has taken it the hardest, having known no other home, she said, followed by her husband. “I think that’s just a guy thing,” she said. “I think he was more emotionally invested in the house because he spent a lot of his free time fixing it up. And then there was the whole stigma of being part of the foreclosure crisis.” “The American Dream, I don’t think that that’s really something that everyone should aspire to. There’s more to life than owning a home,” said the 37-year-old mother of three children. “This teaches you, what do you place value on? A piece of property? What things are really important?” Her family, she said, felt guilty about not upholding their end of the contract. “But that said, it was the best thing we could have done. Since we walked away, our house has only dropped further and we had no hope of getting out from under it,” she said. Now, “We actually have available spending money to do fun things with our family, we pay less money for a completely finished house, my kids have a backyard with grass, and best of all, we can breathe.” ‘PEOPLE SHOULDN’T FEEL ASHAMED’ Del Phillips stopped paying on his Chicago condo in November 2009, two months before he contacted HuffPost and 10 months after he lost his job. His short sale efforts were rejected and he was denied a modification because, according to a letter sent to him by his bank, his “unemployment is not of a permanent nature.” He was also rejected by Obama’s Home Affordable Mortgage Program, he said. He took his story to the local press and was stunned at the vicious response from readers. “We encourage people to work hard, get an education and strive for things. But, when there’s a bump along the way and we need a helping hand for a short time, we’re spit at without any support,” he said. “For a country that touts its devout following of Christianity — which is rooted in the teachings of a Jesus who said to love thy neighbor and help thy brother and sister — it was really a fun lesson in hypocrisy.” And the reality was that every institution Philips dealt with — from the government to his bank — offered him no choice but to walk away. Phillips filed for bankruptcy and plans to move out in March, knowing he could be foreclosed on any moment. More than 15 months of paying only the condo association fees helped him get by during his jobless stretch. And the bank was right: his unemployment was not permanent. He found a job in October that will pay enough for him to afford to rent when he moves — this coming Saturday, 16 months after he stopped paying his mortgage. “I feel like we have a stigma on things like bankruptcy, but those people shouldn’t feel ashamed,” Phillips said. “Yes, some people abuse, like Teresa on ‘Real Housewives,’ but I’m hoping everyday people who are going through this can find some strength in what I’ve done and ask, ‘Why should I care about the bank if the bank doesn’t care about me?’” Despite his bankruptcy, he said, he has more offers for credit cards than he can handle. HAPPIER, BUT NOT PROUD Andrea of Oakland, Calif., who let her property go into foreclosure last year, says it was “clearly financially the thing to do.” After buying her first condo in the Oakland foothills, her property’s value dropped from $440,000 to $250,000 in just three years, and her marriage fell apart. “In terms of quality of life and emotional pressure, I’m much happier now,” said the 38-year-old Andrea, who didn’t want her last name used in this story. Now she pays $1,500 a month for an apartment in Rockridge, one of the East Bay’s most coveted areas. Its leafy streets and atmospheric cafes make it a particularly desirable neighborhood for singles. In some cases, the mortgage money not going to banks finds its way into the local economy and gives walk-aways an ability to breathe easier. “I bought groceries and not just a few bags, but the liberating feeling of filling ones pantry for a change,” says Zannah Becker, who stopped paying her mortgage in Seattle. “I did not have to walk to the market with calculator in one hand and coupons in the other and make choices between what we had to have to get by and a few simple extras like a bottle of diet soda for my husband or a small treat for our daughter.” Having worked as a loan assistant, Andrea told HuffPost she initially thought she’d be able to navigate the system. “I figured I would be well-equipped in my knowledge from my previous job about how to figure it out,” she said, “and I was shocked honestly at their level of disinterest — it was either disinterest on their part in working it out, or lack a of just being organized. But to me, them not being organized to work it out was a symptom of there not being a financial incentive for them to work it out.” When the bank finally foreclosed on her, Andrea said she just let it happen — she felt there was nothing else she could do. “I had gotten in over my head, and I had gone through a divorce, and I was struggling to re-balance my life financially,” she said. When asked if she had advice for homeowners in similar situations, she said people shouldn’t be afraid of walking away. “I think if someone is being responsible and trying to work it out, and they give it everything they can, then it’s okay to do what you have to do, like a business would,” she said. “A lot a lot of people are going through it right now, so maybe five or 10 years down the road, there won’t be so much stigma.” Still, she asked HuffPost to keep her full name a secret. “To be honest, it’s just embarrassing and not something I’m proud of,” she said. Shaming homeowners is one option for a bank dealing with someone who has made the calculation that they are better off walking, and that’s part of the pressure to stay that homeowners we spoke to felt. Homeowners also say they’ve felt little support from the federal government, particularly through its highly-touted, and largely ineffective, Home Affordable Mortgage Program, or HAMP. The Obama administration set up the program to help homeowners modify their mortgages but very little modification has occurred. In fact, HAMP may have been more helpful to banks than to homeowners A group of senior Treasury officials, which included Secretary Tim Geithner, admitted as much to financial bloggers at a meeting this summer. “Officials pointed out that what may have been an agonizing process for individuals was a useful palliative for the system as a whole,” wrote one blogger of the meeting. “Even if most HAMP applicants ultimately default, the program prevented an outbreak of foreclosures exactly when the system could have handled it least…The program was successful in the sense that it kept the patient alive until it had begun to heal. And the patient of this metaphor was not a struggling homeowner, but the financial system, a.k.a. the banks.” Politicians and the media tag-teamed homeowners thinking of walking away last summer. Republicans cited the Wall Street Journal in successfully pushing language through the House that would punish strategic defaulters. “The Wall Street Journal has reported on families that have chosen to stop paying their mortgage and instead use the extra money they are saving each month to ‘buy season tickets to Disneyland…take a Carnival cruise to Mexico…’ and go out to dinner more often,” reads an email from a top House floor staffer GOP offices. House Republican leadership in an e-mail to colleagues explaining the anti-strategic-default effort. The legislation didn’t become law, but it sent a signal. Fannie Mae, the government-owned titan of the mortgage industry, has also been ready to warn homeowners about their financial duties. “Walking away from a mortgage is bad for borrowers and bad for communities and our approach is meant to deter the disturbing trend toward strategic defaulting,” Terence Edwards, a Fannie executive, said in a June statement . Edwards said homeowners who strategically default or fail to work “in good faith” to avert foreclosure would be ineligible for new Fannie Mae-backed mortgages for seven years. Freddie Mac, Fannie’s government-owned counterpart, has adopted the same policy. Fannie, in its statement, also warned it would pursue “deficiency judgments” in court that would allow it to recoup from borrowers the difference between the value of a home in foreclosure and the outstanding loan a bank still has on its books. After inflating the bubble until it burst, banks essentially now want to be insulated from their mistakes by dunning borrowers for every last penny. Deficiency judgments are allowed in 39 states and were a nagging concern to many of the homeowners we spoke to. The IRS may also loom over homeowners who walk away. Under current law, thanks to a measure spearheaded by Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) in 2007, the IRS cannot come after homeowners after they walk away. Before that law took effect, if a bank took, say, a $200,000 hit on a foreclosed home and “forgave” the debt, that forgiveness would be counted as taxable income for the former homeowner. A note to the fence-sitters: Miller’s law expires at the end of 2012. FAMILY VALUES Ray Scott, 45, lives with his wife and two kids in Ferndale, Mich., a suburb of Detroit, where the house he bought for $140,000 five years ago is now worth $90,000. “Last year we were trying to figure out whether it would make sense to walk away from the house or not, considering we’re never going to make it back — at least not in my lifetime — the equity that we already lost,” he said. Scott mulled many options, including foreclosure and a short sale, but the bank wouldn’t approve a short sale and he feared walking away would ruin his credit. Scott said he ultimately decided it was in the family’s best interest to stay. With his wife in nursing school, she needed a good credit rating to qualify for student loans. “If we’d decided to let the home go into foreclosure, or tried to go through with a short sale, that would have had an immediate negative impact on her credit rating, and it would have made it really difficult for her to qualify for student loans,” Scott said. “I didn’t want her to be in that position, where she wouldn’t be able to finance her education.” Further, with both his sons recently diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, Scott felt staying put and having a stable place for his kids was important. “We live in a good community,” he said. “There are good schools, good people, we know all our neighbors. People look out for each other here.” If not for the family concerns, Scott said he would have walked away in a heartbeat. “If it had just been myself and my wife, if the kids hadn’t been involved and she’d been all done with school, it would have been a really easy decision to make to walk away,” Scott said. “We’re so far under, we’re never going to recover the amount of money that we’ve already lost.” HOME IS HOME Kirk Arthur, a 43-year-old software sales manager from Miami, bought his house for $285,000 in 2008. At the time, he thought it was a steal: the house had been on the market for $450,000 only a year earlier. Now he estimates it’s worth just $150,000. “We figured the price couldn’t drop much lower,” Arthur told HuffPost. “Now we can’t foresee our condo appreciating even close to the $285,000 we paid for it two years ago.” Fortunately, Arthur said, he and his husband were able to negotiate with the bank to refinance their mortgage loan to a 4 percent interest rate, reducing their payments by $500 per month. He feels like things have turned out all right. “At the end of the day we were never in any danger of being homeless or even losing our home,” Arthur said in an email. “Yes, one of us lost our job during the hard times (me), but we managed through … I found a job within two weeks of getting laid off — twice. The job I have now is in line with my salary requirements. It’s sort of a happy ending.” Though the value of his home continues to drop, Arthur says he’s not interested in moving. It was hard to find a home that fit his needs and budget in an area where he wanted to live, Arthur said, and moving again would be expensive. “I’m not 25 years old, I’m 43,” he said, “I’ve got stuff.” What’s more, Arthur says that while property values in the area have dropped, the price of rentals has risen, minimizing any potential walkaway savings. But more than anything, it’s the idea of home that Arthur is unwilling to relinquish. “It comes from my parents,” he said of his desire to own. “Your home, your house is such a symbol of status, an important indication of where you are in life,” he added. “You can paint it, express yourself, make it your own … We’re happy in Miami.” FORECLOSURE AS THE NEW DIVORCE Jon Maddux is CEO of You Walk Away, a California-based company that helps homeowners navigate foreclosure. Founded in 2007, the company has assisted more than 4,000 people navigate foreclosure, according to its website. Maddux told HuffPost that fewer and fewer people are sobbing when they call for help. He said that’s because of growing cracks in the old chestnut that foreclosure victims are “financially irresponsible” or “deadbeats.” Same as what happened with divorce, he said. “People thought of it as horrific if someone was to get a divorce,” said Maddux. “And then, over the years, it was like, well, okay, they got divorced. It’s understandable because that’s what a lot of people do.” Some 60 to 70 percent of You Walk Away’s clients actually can afford their mortgage payments, Maddux says; most people just need assistance in handling an exceptionally-bad property investment. Maddux thinks renting is the future; statistics bear that out. According to U.S. Census data released this week, homeownership rates have dipped to their lowest level since 1998. “You can do whatever you need to do,” said Maddux of renting. “It’s important to be able to move if you find a job … in another city.” TRAPPED ON AN ISLAND Brian Shiro, 32, lives with his wife and 3-year-old son in Ewa Beach on Oahu, where he said the house he bought for $411,000 in October 2005 is now worth only around $250,000. Shiro, who said he earns a six-figure salary working as a geophysicist, says he can afford his mortgage, but half of his income goes to making the monthly payments. The bigger problem though, is the lack of freedom. He’d like to pursue other career opportunities, he says, but stands to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars if he moves now. Shiro bets that in 10 or 15 years, his home will recover its value, but even that assumption is a gamble. In the meantime, he’s unhappy being trapped on the island. “I’ve had to turn down some job offers, I’ve had to reconsider educational opportunities,” says Shiro, who recently applied to a doctoral program in civil and environmental engineering in the San Francisco Bay Area. “All sorts of things that would advance my career would require relocation,” he said. What’s more, his wife is pregnant with their second child, and Shiro feels his family has outgrown the space. “A four-member family in a small town home is a little cramped,” he said. “It’s an aspect you don’t hear talked a lot about too is people who are playing by the rules, making the payments, but for whatever reason just want to try to get on with their lives and can’t because they’re stuck in a holding pattern.” PEER PRESSURE When he contacted HuffPost last year, Wayne King said he was trying to do a short sale on his house in Columbus, Ohio, which he’d bought in 2002 for $128,000. Six years later, in 2008, he left his job as a professor at Ohio State University for a new gig at a software company outside of Boston. The short-sale process hadn’t been going well, despite the new floors and carpets King said he and his wife had installed. “When I owe $107,000, I can’t afford to take $80,000,” he wrote, referring to the lowball offers he’d received. “I am up-to-date on my mortgage, but I don’t know how long I can afford to keep paying the mortgage along with utilities and upkeep in one state and rent in another state.” By then, King had already soured on the folk wisdom about homeownership. “People are fed this storyline that buying a home is the best investment you can make,” he wrote. “Something that will always appreciate and never lose value, but buying a home has been the worse investment I have ever made.” His attempts at a short sale didn’t pan out. King said this year that his lender appraised the home at a level nobody would pay. He said he looked into renting the place out, but discovered that at the going rate for rents, he’d still be losing money. He can afford to continue paying the mortgage, but doing so would squeeze the family finances — he said he and his wife just had a baby — so now he’s ready to walk away. King is trying to do a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, which is a process similar to a formal foreclosure but widely believed to be less damaging to a homeowner’s credit. His understanding, after speaking to his bank and to counselors from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, is that he needs to be delinquent by at least one month for this to work. Then, he said, his bank told him it will take five months or more for the process to finish up. (HUD’s guidelines say a DIL should not take more than 90 days and that current borrowers can still be eligible.) “It’s this hopeless situation where there’s nothing I can do except sit on my hands while these four or five late payments end up on my credit report,” he said. Every month the deed-in-lieu process continues, the Big Three credit-monitoring bureaus will hear from the bank that King is delinquent, and they’ll plug that info into their proprietary algorithms for determining his credit score, which will sink lower and lower. King, a mathematician who works for a company that creates algorithms, is frustrated that his credit score is calculated in a secret way and that it’s impossible for him to know exactly how much lower the score will go. King’s algorithmic background makes him particularly sensitive to the vicissitudes of his credit score, but everyone else in the pack also spoke either with concern about their score or relief that they had been able to let go of it — like a Taoist on the path to a higher state of being. There’s a practical reason for that: a low score makes credit harder to access and life harder to live. But it’s also part of the reality that a low score will destroy someone’s personal finances. A spokeswoman for Experian, one of the Big Three credit reporting bureaus, said there’s no way to know exactly how badly any given financial decision will hurt a person’s credit score, or even if a deed-in-lieu will be better than a foreclosure. “There are hundreds of different credit scores out there in the marketplace,” the spokeswoman said. “Credit scores analyze the information from an individual’s credit report, and no single factor can be considered in isolation. For that reason, any given item can have a different point impact for each individual, even when the scoring system used is exactly the same. It’s not a formula, such as ‘Two delinquencies plus a foreclosure plus seven accounts all in good standing equal this score.’ It’s much more complex, and that’s why we really can’t provide an exact point value for a deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure, a short sale, foreclosure or a bankruptcy.” Meanwhile, King’s ongoing mortgage mess is an occasional topic of water cooler discussion at the office. “It’s embarrassing for me because I have to work in a very educated, more well-off environment, because most of the people I work with have Ph.D.s and probably make far above the median income,” he said. “So to be in the position where you’re — they’re constantly asking about the house. They all knew I had a house I was trying to sell.” While concerned about his credit score, King doesn’t want to feel like a deadbeat, either. “I’ve always paid my debts. It’s something that’s instilled in you,” he said. “You get it from the media. I was just watching Kudlow not that long ago and he was harping on the obligation to pay your debts. It just kind of permeates.” LET THEM EAT CAT FOOD CNBC anchor and noted oligarch Larry Kudlow articulated the mainstream position against strategic defaulters in a May column on CNBC.com. “[J]ust because a home loan is ‘underwater’ — meaning its value is lower than today’s current market price — why should a responsible person whine about it and walk away?” Kudlow wrote. “Why not service this loan for the longer term and wait for prices to improve? That’s called personal responsibility.” This is in keeping with received wisdom about the evils of foreclosure. As Brent White of the University of Arizona’s law school noted in an October paper, “the predominant message of political, social, and economic institutions in the United States has functioned to cultivate fear, shame, and guilt in those who might contemplate foreclosure.” One can think of keeping the strategic default rate low — White’s paper put it between 2.5 percent and 3.5 percent — as a slow-drip bank bailout. With rescued banks now profitable yet refusing to modify underwater mortgages, the widespread fear that prevents more strategic defaults “has led to distributional inequalities in which individual homeowners shoulder a disproportionate financial burden from the housing collapse,” White wrote. In other words, homeowners who shy from strategic default are collectively doing Wall Street and the banking system another favor — beyond just footing the bank-bailout bill as taxpayers. Yet the moral argument is out of sync with some basic financial logic. As White sees it, plummeting home prices mean: “Millions of U.S. homeowners could save hundreds of thousands of dollars by strategically defaulting on their mortgages.” Data suggest that wealthier Americans, not those with lower or mid-range incomes, have a greater proclivity for punting their mortgage obligations by embracing strategic defaults. The New York Times reported in July that more than one in seven homeowners with loans of more than $1 million are seriously delinquent, compared with one in 12 homeowners who owe less than $1 million. It’s a stat analysts chalk up to strategic default. “The rich are different: they are more ruthless,” Sam Khater, CoreLogic’s senior economist, told the Times. So are some big, well-heeled corporations. For example, investment bank and bailout recipient Morgan Stanley walked away from five San Francisco office buildings at the end of 2009. Real-estate company Tishman Speyer — which also leases space to HuffPost for its Washington, D.C. office — strategically defaulted on the biggest residential property deal ever in January 2010, around the same time Wayne King and others were pulling their hair out over whether they should do the same. And the Mortgage Bankers Association, lobbyists for mortgage lenders, walked away from their own headquarters in Washington, D.C. in February 2010. (The MBA did not respond to requests for comment for this story.) Peter Fredman, a foreclosure defense attorney in California, said he was getting so many calls from people who wanted to sue over their exploding interest-only mortgages that he decided to set up a “strategic default” calculator online as a public service. Instead of suing some penniless broker, he kept having to suggest, why not just walk away? “Ironically, a lot of people who feel that special obligation [to pay a mortgage] are the people in the worst position,” Fredman said. “Upper-class people, they have no problem with what’s going on. They have bigger considerations.” Fredman’s website puts it like this: “From the institutional lenders’ point of view, you should eat cat food and take your kids out of school before you stop making your mortgage payment. But that is because institutional lenders don’t eat or have kids. They are fictitious entities, constitutionally dedicated solely to the pursuit of money. Repaying your debts may be a matter of personal integrity that you may or may not be able to afford. But you have no moral obligation [to] the financial institutions because they do not operate in a moral universe.” ‘WE KNEW THESE PEOPLE’ Howell Ellerman teaches real-estate classes at Folsom Lake College in Folsom, Calif. Last fall, a student in his thirties asked Ellerman about the meaning of financial responsibility and the hard realities of home ownership in the wake of the housing meltdown. “He’s in a house that is $500,000 underwater. I think they bought it for $1 million,” recalled Ellerman, 51. “He asked me in front of the whole class, ‘Should I walk away from my house?’” “I can’t give you advice,” Ellerman said he told his student, “but in the world we live in, there isn’t a better time to walk away. You shouldn’t feel any compunction.” Ellerman himself had been prepared to walk away from the home where he and his wife and kids had lived for 12 years. They wanted to buy a bigger house 10 miles away asking $595,000 as a short sale after initially listing at $1.5 million. “We made an above-asking price offer and are now in contract to buy the house and move with our five kids there,” Ellerman wrote. “The question is what do we do with our current house, which we love and have taken great care of.” He wrote that they wanted to sell or rent out the previous house but were willing to walk away and take the credit hit if the bank wouldn’t cooperate. It didn’t — Ellerman said the bank initially approved them on a loan for the new house but then decided to foreclose on it instead, so they’re still in their old house. It sits on a cul-de-sac with 10 others. Ellerman said four emptied in the past few years. He’s certain two are foreclosures. He has no idea where any of the families went; he figures they couldn’t handle the shame. “Seriously, we knew these people. They’d been over for Christmas, and then all of a sudden we see the U-Haul truck pull up,” he said. “When people leave their houses they don’t even say goodbye. They leave like in the cloak of darkness in a U-Haul truck and you don’t even know where they go.” THE AMERICAN DREAM When Bob Balint of Sarasota, Fla., wrote to HuffPost last year, he was asking for advice rather than looking to tell his story. We told him to consult with a lawyer — good advice to anybody thinking of walking away — and he did. Balint, 55, a father of two, is a dispatcher for the local transit system, and his wife teaches young children. He said their combined income of $51,000, boosted by occasional overtime, was enough to make their mortgage payments. But overtime has given way to furloughs and their house, which they owe $225,000 on, is falling apart. Balint lives in a part of the country particularly ravaged by the housing collapse and similar houses nearby are going for as little as $40,000, he said. “It’s like buying a Lexus,” he said. “You can almost come up with that in cash. Gimme two years without paying every Tom, Dick and Harry that I owe and I’ll have it.” The Balints were late on a few payments through 2010 but made them up each time. “We’re hanging in there by hook and crook,” he said. After a year of wrestling with the decision, however, the Balints are finally pulling the ripcord. This January, they made their last mortgage payment. They’re walking away from the home they’ve lived in since 1994 to rent a better, cheaper place. He’s looking forward to the freedom that will come with renting. “You’re almost better off not owning. If you’re company buckles up, you’re stuck, you can’t move to the jobs,” Balint said. “The American Dream is for shit.”

Read the full article →

Alicia Morga: Where Are the Women Entrepreneurs?

January 25, 2011

Silicon Valley has been batting around the question, where are the women entrepreneurs? There are women entrepreneurs. In fact, women-owned businesses contribute close to $3 trillion to the U.S. GDP, according to the Small Business Association. But these ladies aren’t on the radar of Silicon Valley because they don’t have venture funding. It’s easy to see why many women don’t have venture funding. You only have to understand what it takes to obtain it. Most women owners of small-to-medium sized businesses don’t go after venture capital because they don’t know anybody employed by a venture capital firm — part of what is required to gain entry. The venture capital community, for all the power it yields, is small and insular. That’s not to say it can’t be cracked, but if you don’t live in Silicon Valley, New York, Boston, Colorado, Austin or Los Angeles, you’re going to have a hard time building the relationships it takes to get a meeting. There is, however, another way. You have a big idea with a large potential return on investment. The critique of women is often that they don’t think big enough, but the critics forget the practical realities of aiming for the fences. It’s risky. Many of the women who start businesses often get their companies to a place where they are making more money than perhaps they thought they’d ever see — probably right around $250,000 a year in take home pay. At that income level, they can put their kids through college, buy a home and manage their lives. For all the risk inherent in entrepreneurship, it’s a comfortable outcome and doesn’t make the owner any less of an entrepreneur. It is not a number, however, that excites venture capitalists. Many of these businesses actually could be bigger and more interesting to VCs, but at least three things would have to happen — and they’re not unique to women owned businesses. First, the owners would have to have access to capital to expand. It’s nearly impossible these days to get a small business loan and you can see here the classic chicken versus the egg conundrum. Second, the businesses would have to be centered on technology. Venture capitalists, in general, are uncomfortable with non-technology focused businesses, even though non-technology focused businesses make up greater than 50% of the stock market. Third, the owners would have to acquire new skills. It’s one thing when you’re the plumber. You can generate a certain amount of revenue doing most of the plumbing yourself. But in order to expand, the plumber has to become a manager, has to build systems, an organization and these are difficult things to do when you’re trying to actually get work done at the same time. Even if all these criteria are met venture capital investment may still not make sense for the business. And there are plenty of women who are smart enough to know that and therefore do not seek it. Yet, Silicon Valley doesn’t recognize these ladies as entrepreneurs. To fit Silicon Valley’s myopic view of an entrepreneur women business owners would have to raise venture capital which a certain percentage don’t need, some don’t qualify for, and others don’t even know is possible. Still, if we want more venture-backed women led businesses, we can start by inspiring women to first become entrepreneurs. We can do this by touting all women entrepreneurs, regardless of their type of business or financing. Further, we can educate young women about the venture capital industry. It’s easy to forget when you’re in Silicon Valley, but many young people, future business leaders, have never even heard of venture capital. Exposure can help shape the form of dreams. Finally, the venture community itself could benefit from meeting women entrepreneurs where they find them. Innovative financing models, such as extracting a return through dividends and smaller, paced investments alongside a broadening of the types of businesses funded, might not only support a more balanced landscape but also restore venture capital as a viable asset class. The reality is there are a number of women entrepreneurs out there who have built successful businesses — often, one dollar at a time. These ladies are my heroes and from my vantage point, I see them everywhere.

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: The State of the Union and the Federal Budget: Investing in America’s Future

January 24, 2011

Word has it that the president will be emphasizing “improving American competitiveness” in his State of the Union Address Tuesday night. As I’ve noted , the term is meaningless — but it’s politically useful. CEOs and many conservatives think it means improving the profitability of American companies. Liberals and labor unions think it means increasing export jobs. Neither touches at the heart of the matter. Hopefully, the president will. Over the long term, the only way to improve the living standards of most Americans is to invest in our people — especially their educations, skills, and the communications and transportation systems linking them together and with the rest of the world (infrastructure). In the global economy, the only “asset” that’s unique to any nation — and that determines its living standard — is the people who comprise it. Almost everything else moves across global boundaries at the speed of an electronic impulse. (Money is available to any major business from anywhere around the world. Any entrepreneur can rent or purchase additional office or factory capacity, and the most up-to-date machinery, instantly from anywhere. Commodities, supplies, and components can be summoned almost as quickly from anywhere.) That’s why spending on education, infrastructure, and basic R&D (which educates our people in the technologies and processes of the future) is fundamentally different from other categories of government spending. These outlays are really investments in the future productivity of our people. Here’s where the debate over the deficit comes in. If the federal budget were organized sanely, it would be divided into three parts: (1) Past obligations, (2) Current needs, (3) Future investments. Past obligations reflect payments Americans have made over the course of their lives in the expectation of receiving social insurance (mostly Social Security and Medicare) when they retire. These past obligations need to be honored because they’re based on implicit contracts between the public and the government. If such contracts are to be altered, they should be altered only for future generations who haven’t yet entered into them. Current needs reflect everything we want today in order to remain safe and healthy (from national defense through Medicaid). The current needs budget should be balanced each year. It’s appropriate that we pay for all our current needs through our current taxes. But future investments are qualitatively different. There’s no problem with borrowing in order to finance such investments. While it might be irresponsible for a family to go into debt in order to finance a worldwide cruise, it could be equally irresponsible for the same family not to borrow money in order to help finance their kids’ college. In fact, borrowing in order to increase future productivity is sensible — up to the point where the return on the investment is no longer higher than the cost (principal plus interest) of the loan. Ideally, the federal budget would be divided along these lines — past, present, and future. And the future, or “capital,” budget (containing spending on education, infrastructure, and basic R&D) would be separated from the rest, with its own system for “scoring” — that is, evaluating — whether the likely return is worth the cost. It won’t be an easy call in every case, of course, but the Congressional Budget Office and the OMB take on much harder ones. Who knows? The president may even propose something like this tomorrow night. Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future , now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

WATCH: Obama Says Tax Cut Deal Imperfect, But Still Worth It

December 11, 2010

Darlene Superville, Associated Press WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama calls his tax-cut agreement with Republicans far from perfect but a good deal overall for Americans, while acknowledging that many fellow Democrats aren’t happy about what he negotiated with the GOP. Pressing for passage by year’s end, he told lawmakers in his radio and Internet address Saturday that “our recovery will be strengthened or weakened based on the choice that now rests with Congress.” The deal would extend for all earners cuts in income tax rates that are set to expire next month. It would renew jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed and trim Social Security taxes for one year. Republicans support the plan because it would not impose higher taxes on the wealthiest, as Obama long had wanted to do. Democrats object to the pact on grounds that it is too generous to the rich. WATCH: Obama said the agreement will require that both parties accept some things they don’t like. But he said the agreement will help the middle-class families that he and others have argued should be spared further economic hardship. “The opportunity for families to send their kids to college hinges on this debate,” Obama said. “The ability of parents to put food on the table while looking for a job depends on this debate.” He said he was confident that Congress, where voting is expected to begin on the measure next week, “will do the right thing.” Obama won some high-profile backing for the agreement from former President Bill Clinton. The former president told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Obama on Friday afternoon that “I don’t believe there is a better deal out there.” In their weekly address, Republican Rep.-elect Kristi Noem of South Dakota applauded the deal and said it’s good for small businesses. “With unemployment still rising, the No. 1 thing our family-owned small businesses need right now is certainty,” she said. “They need to know that the government is not going to come in and do anything to jeopardize their ability to keep their doors open. So it’s certainly encouraging to see that President Obama has proposed a potential agreement to stop all the tax hikes scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1.” But she said additional steps will be needed to spur economic growth, including spending cuts, making government smaller and repealing the new health care law.

Read the full article →

Michael Wenger: The People Who Need This Deal

December 8, 2010

The current outrage among progressives about the tax deal negotiated by President Obama and Republicans reminds me of a philosophical debate we used to have when I was an anti-poverty community organizer in the late 1960s in southern West Virginia. Most organizers were idealistic middle-class college students or recent college graduates who were convinced they were on the side of the angels in trying to change a system that unfairly condemned the powerless to a daily struggle for economic survival while those with political and economic power wielded their power for personal gain at the expense of the powerless. We believed passionately that compromise equaled “selling out” and that it was better to fail while standing on principle than to take half a loaf. But while we could and would trade our community organizing efforts for economically secure careers after a few years, those who were struggling to put food on their tables, a roof over their family’s head, and clothes on their children’s backs were less interested in changing the system than they were in making it to the next day. To them, as President Obama alluded to in his press conference, an abstract debate about principle was a luxury they couldn’t afford. That’s what progressives need to keep in mind over the next few days as this deal moves toward a vote in Congress. I stand with progressives in disliking this deal. By telegraphing his willingness to compromise before the negotiations even began, President Obama significantly weakened his position. Thus, Republicans knew they didn’t have to budge on the tax cuts for the rich. Nonetheless, it is difficult for me to see how progressives can justify a no vote on the deal if they really care about their middle and working-class constituents. First, a close look at the deal reveals that it is heavily weighted on the side of the middle and working class. Of the approximately $990 billion that this deal is expected to cost, $79 billion is a result of tax cuts for the wealthy. Add another $68 billion for the estate tax changes, and you have a total of $147 billion wasted on the rich. That’s not chump change, but it amounts to less than 15% of the total. On the other hand, the total cost of extending middle income tax cuts and unemployment compensation benefits, providing a one-year payroll tax holiday, indexing the alternative minimum tax for inflation, and extending the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit and the college tuition deduction amounts to $617 billion, or more than 60% of the total. The remaining $226 billion is for business incentives for capital investments and for research and development. In sum, this doesn’t seem like such a bad deal. Second, and more important, failing to pass this deal means sticking it to out-of-work parents who need the unemployment compensation check to make it into next week, to students who need the college tuition break to make into the next semester, and to the working poor who need the Earned Income Tax Credit to make ends meet. To those who argue that if we hold out and stand on principle, we can get a better deal, I would remind them that they’re not the ones at risk. They will still be able to dine out at their favorite restaurant, return to a comfortable home, write a check for the rent or the mortgage, and fall asleep under their electric blanket. If their strategy fails, no harm done — to them. From a strictly political point of view, this is not a bad deal either. First, by putting more money in the pockets of those who will spend it quickly and by providing additional incentives for business, it clearly will help to strengthen the economy, which is, after all, the key to the President’s re-election prospects. Second, passage of this deal will open the door to possible votes during the lame duck session on the Dream Act, the Start Treaty, and “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Third, when the 2012 election comes around, Democrats will be able to point to the blatant Republican hypocrisy about the deficit, and with the economy stronger, they’ll be able to puncture the Republican argument that we shouldn’t raise anybody’s taxes in an economic downturn. Progressives may feel that extending tax cuts for the rich is immoral and that the president could have gotten a better deal. In my opinion, they are correct. But they didn’t have the courage to bring the tax cut extension to a vote before the mid-term elections, when they might have succeeded in getting a better deal. So, as they ponder their vote while seeking to get out of town in time to be able to spend Christmas opening presents with their families, they should think about those who will spend a present-less Christmas choosing between heating their home, if it hasn’t already been foreclosed, and feeding their kids. Those are the people who need this deal, and they need it now. The views expressed here are solely those of the author.

Read the full article →