#retirement #RetirementAge #pensions #PensionPlans #WorkToAge70
Denmark is raising its retirement age to 70, to help shore up its version of Social Security.
Such a move is fraught with peril.
First, many occupations are physically demanding. At age 70, workers may not have all the physical characteristics to perform their jobs adequately.
Second, employers don’t want to keep people around until age 70 in any capacity. Once you get up in age, you are making a lot of money (in the employer’s eyes). They will want you to go, so they can hire someone younger and cheaper. Remember, too, that older people generally use the health insurance a lot more than younger people do, if the employer happens to provide such benefits.
In general, older workers are reliable, follow company protocol and are dedicated. That doesn’t mean they want to keep working until age 70.
Most of those who work until that age, or beyond, are high-level people – executives, celebrities etc.
Some who are still working at that age should not be: think singers.
Still, boosting pension plans is a real issue. With people having children, there are fewer younger workers contributing to most pension plans than there are retirees collecting. With these pension plans, it doesn’t matter whether people are working at age 70 AND collecting, because they are still paying in at the same time.
But, not collecting until age 70 can be a problem for a lot of workers.
Further, if Worker X is laid off by Employer Y before his or her retirement age, who will hire that person after that?
U.S. labor laws of the past were written to protect those older than 50 from undue discrimination. Of course, employers found ways around those laws if they really wanted someone gone.
If a person has a good job and loses it before his or her retirement, will he or she be forced to take a much lesser job at, say, age 60? Will an accountant have to go work in a grocery store until he or she retires?
Even though that happens sometimes, usually the ex-accountant is collecting an income from somewhere other than the store. He or she is just using the store job for pin money, social interaction etc.
But, if he or she is unable to collect an income and is forced to live off the store salary, how much of his or her life will have to go so he or she can survive?
Sell the house? Liquidate savings? None of these is a good option for the worker.
The best way to shore up retirement plans, like the U.S. Social Security system, is to tax every earned dollar during the working years.
Currently, the earnings cap is $176,000, which rises every year as average earnings increase.
The system would shore up pretty quickly if you put no cap on earnings to be taxed for Social Security. That way, executives, athletes, celebrities etc. who earn millions annually can pay their fair share and boost the system.
Perhaps there could be room for refunds if the system suddenly is flush with cash, but that is unlikely.
Forcing people to work into their elder years is not only cruel to the worker, but also impractical in the current job market.
The real problem for workers is finding ways to survive when they are forced to retire before they want to.
Peter
Author Archives: pbilodeau01
WHAT KIND OF GRADUATION SPEECH DO YOU WANT TO HEAR?
#GraduationSpeeches #graduates #graduation #GraduationCeremonies #speeches
Graduation ceremonies always have speeches.
Some speakers make pretty good coin speaking at graduations. Some even make news with them.
Some, if not most, graduates couldn’t care less about hearing a speech from someone well-known or famous. Many just want to get the ceremonies over with, so they can get to the fun celebrations sooner.
Also, graduates mostly hear speeches talking about motivation, following one’s dreams, working hard etc. Most graduates know what they are going to do next, so the emotional speeches can ring hollow.
Some graduation speakers have taken to straying from conventional topics and talking about themselves, their grievances and what THEY – not the graduates – can do for the world.
That not only can ring hollow for graduates, but can be downright annoying for them, and potentially embarrassing for the speaker.
Still, the graduation speeches must be given, and endured, because it’s how we do things.
The truly outstanding graduation speech – one that has graduates soaking up every word – is rare, but not unheard of.
What if schools and colleges dispensed with the speeches and just handed out diplomas or degrees and sent everyone home?
That would put a real dent in what has become more than a cottage industry. Not only do a lot of these speakers get paid well for a speech, they also often collect honorary degrees from the institution.
Politicians, authors, athletes, celebrities and academics often thrive on giving these speeches.
To be fair, some good ideas and quotes arise from the speeches. As a graduate, wouldn’t you love to have a few quotes from the speech in the folder with your degree or diploma, rather than sit through a whole long speech?
Graduation ceremonies can be uncomfortable. It can be 100 degrees in a big venue with no air-conditioning, or outside in the heat or the rain.
To sit through a long speech in either of those conditions likely would mean you won’t get much from the speech, no matter how good it is. And, regardless of conditions, it’s unlikely a graduate will remember much from any speech a few weeks later.
If schools removed the speeches and cut to the chase of handing out degrees or diplomas, there would be more time for families to take pictures and enjoy a good celebration afterward.
Though speeches can be inspirational, educational and motivating, most graduates likely would rather do without them.
More comfortable clothes and more fun with family and friends are on most graduates’ wish list.
Some graduates opt to skip the whole ceremony and have their degree or diploma sent to them sometime later.
If one must sit through a graduation ceremony, those who plan them should think more about what the graduates want, and less about what the institution or the speakers want.
Peter
Graduation ceremonies always have speeches.
Some speakers make pretty good coin speaking at graduations. Some even make news with them.
Some, if not most, graduates couldn’t care less about hearing a speech from someone well-known or famous. Many just want to get the ceremonies over with, so they can get to the fun celebrations sooner.
Also, graduates mostly hear speeches talking about motivation, following one’s dreams, working hard etc. Most graduates know what they are going to do next, so the emotional speeches can ring hollow.
Some graduation speakers have taken to straying from conventional topics and talking about themselves, their grievances and what THEY – not the graduates – can do for the world.
That not only can ring hollow for graduates, but can be downright annoying for them, and potentially embarrassing for the speaker.
Still, the graduation speeches must be given, and endured, because it’s how we do things.
The truly outstanding graduation speech – one that has graduates soaking up every word – is rare, but not unheard of.
What if schools and colleges dispensed with the speeches and just handed out diplomas or degrees and sent everyone home?
That would put a real dent in what has become more than a cottage industry. Not only do a lot of these speakers get paid well for a speech, they also often collect honorary degrees from the institution.
Politicians, authors, athletes, celebrities and academics often thrive on giving these speeches.
To be fair, some good ideas and quotes arise from the speeches. As a graduate, wouldn’t you love to have a few quotes from the speech in the folder with your degree or diploma, rather than sit through a whole long speech?
Graduation ceremonies can be uncomfortable. It can be 100 degrees in a big venue with no air-conditioning, or outside in the heat or the rain.
To sit through a long speech in either of those conditions likely would mean you won’t get much from the speech, no matter how good it is. And, regardless of conditions, it’s unlikely a graduate will remember much from any speech a few weeks later.
If schools removed the speeches and cut to the chase of handing out degrees or diplomas, there would be more time for families to take pictures and enjoy a good celebration afterward.
Though speeches can be inspirational, educational and motivating, most graduates likely would rather do without them.
More comfortable clothes and more fun with family and friends are on most graduates’ wish list.
Some graduates opt to skip the whole ceremony and have their degree or diploma sent to them sometime later.
If one must sit through a graduation ceremony, those who plan them should think more about what the graduates want, and less about what the institution or the speakers want.
Peter
MAKING THINGS IN U.S. NOT AS EASY AS IT SOUNDS.
#manufacturing #USmanufacturing #iPhones #Apple #tariffs
More domestic manufacturing may be a desired goal, but it’s not as easy to pull off as it sounds.
Tariffs are designed to bring more manufacturing to the U.S., but it can’t happen overnight.
Take the idea of putting a tariff on an iPhone, which is now made in China.
To make an iPhone here, Apple would have to create enough capacity to fulfill the demand . As iPhones change and are upgraded, the manufacturing will have to change with it.
It probably means Apple would have to build all new factories. That alone would take years.
It would have to build them so they can be easily retooled as the iPhone evolves.
Then, there is the job of finding enough workers, which has not been easy for any employer recently.
What would Apple have to pay these workers to entice them to work in an iPhone factory?
If the tariffs go away BEFORE Apple can finish building the factory, would the whole idea be moot? Certainly, the Chinese-made iPhones would always be cheaper to make than the ones made here.
Now, let’s talk about how often iPhone users trade in their phones.
Are you the type of user that trades his or her phone every time a new iPhone comes out?
Or, do you hold on to your iPhone for as long as it works for you, or until Apple decides it no longer will support your old phone? (Such forced obsolescence is a debate for another day).
How will those decision-making patterns affect factory construction?
What about all the accessories – cases, holsters etc. – that go with iPhones. Do the companies that make those make them in the U.S.? If not, and they are tariffed, will a case cost more than a phone, or will those companies also have to create factories here?
The tariffs are being assessed without regard for any of this. It’s nice to wish for more domestic manufacturing, but it’s hard to achieve, considering the facts on the ground.
Most companies would gladly make more things here, if they could do it for the same price as they pay to make them elsewhere.
But labor, materials and everything else used to make things are usually more expensive here.
Those who wish to create more manufacturing jobs here learn quickly that Americans will not work long hours in a factory for minimum wage.
Americans are having enough trouble affording to live here, never mind having to be forced into an income that will not cover their bills.
In short, domestic manufacturing may be a great goal. But, not everything can be made here for the price that can make what we need affordable.
International trade should be as free of tariffs as possible to allow the markets to be stable, affordable and make products of the best quality and price.
Peter
More domestic manufacturing may be a desired goal, but it’s not as easy to pull off as it sounds.
Tariffs are designed to bring more manufacturing to the U.S., but it can’t happen overnight.
Take the idea of putting a tariff on an iPhone, which is now made in China.
To make an iPhone here, Apple would have to create enough capacity to fulfill the demand . As iPhones change and are upgraded, the manufacturing will have to change with it.
It probably means Apple would have to build all new factories. That alone would take years.
It would have to build them so they can be easily retooled as the iPhone evolves.
Then, there is the job of finding enough workers, which has not been easy for any employer recently.
What would Apple have to pay these workers to entice them to work in an iPhone factory?
If the tariffs go away BEFORE Apple can finish building the factory, would the whole idea be moot? Certainly, the Chinese-made iPhones would always be cheaper to make than the ones made here.
Now, let’s talk about how often iPhone users trade in their phones.
Are you the type of user that trades his or her phone every time a new iPhone comes out?
Or, do you hold on to your iPhone for as long as it works for you, or until Apple decides it no longer will support your old phone? (Such forced obsolescence is a debate for another day).
How will those decision-making patterns affect factory construction?
What about all the accessories – cases, holsters etc. – that go with iPhones. Do the companies that make those make them in the U.S.? If not, and they are tariffed, will a case cost more than a phone, or will those companies also have to create factories here?
The tariffs are being assessed without regard for any of this. It’s nice to wish for more domestic manufacturing, but it’s hard to achieve, considering the facts on the ground.
Most companies would gladly make more things here, if they could do it for the same price as they pay to make them elsewhere.
But labor, materials and everything else used to make things are usually more expensive here.
Those who wish to create more manufacturing jobs here learn quickly that Americans will not work long hours in a factory for minimum wage.
Americans are having enough trouble affording to live here, never mind having to be forced into an income that will not cover their bills.
In short, domestic manufacturing may be a great goal. But, not everything can be made here for the price that can make what we need affordable.
International trade should be as free of tariffs as possible to allow the markets to be stable, affordable and make products of the best quality and price.
Peter
UNCERTAINTY, OR UNPREDICTABILITY?
#uncertainty #unpredictability #investing #tariffs #InvestmentClimate
How does one invest in a time of uncertainty, as we are in now?
Betsey Stevenson, economics and public policy professor at the University of Michigan, and former chief economist at the U.S. Labor Department, discussed this on MSNBC’s “All In with Chris Hayes on May 15, 2025.
She basically said it was difficult for investors and businesses to plan when things change so frequently.
She and other economists consider this time “uncertain,” as tariffs are implemented, adjusted and/or paused almost daily.
In fact, most investment climates, save for mattress money or insured bank accounts, are “uncertain.” Investors do not know for sure whether the risk(s) they are taking will pan out. They can judge, based on fundamentals and research, the likelihood of an investment panning out.
They also can judge the economic climate to see whether their decisions are more or less likely to pay off.
But, as with all risks, there is always a chance of an investment not proving worthy.
A pandemic, a natural disaster or other unanticipated circumstances could suddenly affect the investment performance.
Or, the company or venture in which one is investing could fail because of human error or mismanagement that one may not foresee.
So, all investments, no matter the climate, are uncertain.
What is happening today makes investing more unpredictable.
Investors are unable to forecast, even if the entity is a good risk on its face, whether the investment pays off.
The purpose of tariffs, essentially, is to urge companies to import less, and make more things in the U.S.
There are myriad problems with that. First, it takes many years for a company, if it were to decide to make more things here, to set up the capacity to do it – build or convert a factory, hire the right people, buy the needed equipment (perhaps from a foreign maker) etc.
Who knows what would happen to the tariffs during that conversion period.
Secondly, there are things that we just can’t grow in the U.S. Bananas are tariffed, yet we do not have the climate to grow them. Coffee is tariffed, but Hawaii is the only state that grows coffee, and it doesn’t grow enough to satisfy nationwide demand.
Thirdly, other countries can make many things better and cheaper than we can here, no matter what we do. We do things well, they do things well, and that’s why we trade.
So, the next time an economist calls these times “uncertain,” they’d be more precise to call these times “unpredictable,” because the “uncertainty” is deliberately created by one person – who is unpredictable.
Peter
How does one invest in a time of uncertainty, as we are in now?
Betsey Stevenson, economics and public policy professor at the University of Michigan, and former chief economist at the U.S. Labor Department, discussed this on MSNBC’s “All In with Chris Hayes on May 15, 2025.
She basically said it was difficult for investors and businesses to plan when things change so frequently.
She and other economists consider this time “uncertain,” as tariffs are implemented, adjusted and/or paused almost daily.
In fact, most investment climates, save for mattress money or insured bank accounts, are “uncertain.” Investors do not know for sure whether the risk(s) they are taking will pan out. They can judge, based on fundamentals and research, the likelihood of an investment panning out.
They also can judge the economic climate to see whether their decisions are more or less likely to pay off.
But, as with all risks, there is always a chance of an investment not proving worthy.
A pandemic, a natural disaster or other unanticipated circumstances could suddenly affect the investment performance.
Or, the company or venture in which one is investing could fail because of human error or mismanagement that one may not foresee.
So, all investments, no matter the climate, are uncertain.
What is happening today makes investing more unpredictable.
Investors are unable to forecast, even if the entity is a good risk on its face, whether the investment pays off.
The purpose of tariffs, essentially, is to urge companies to import less, and make more things in the U.S.
There are myriad problems with that. First, it takes many years for a company, if it were to decide to make more things here, to set up the capacity to do it – build or convert a factory, hire the right people, buy the needed equipment (perhaps from a foreign maker) etc.
Who knows what would happen to the tariffs during that conversion period.
Secondly, there are things that we just can’t grow in the U.S. Bananas are tariffed, yet we do not have the climate to grow them. Coffee is tariffed, but Hawaii is the only state that grows coffee, and it doesn’t grow enough to satisfy nationwide demand.
Thirdly, other countries can make many things better and cheaper than we can here, no matter what we do. We do things well, they do things well, and that’s why we trade.
So, the next time an economist calls these times “uncertain,” they’d be more precise to call these times “unpredictable,” because the “uncertainty” is deliberately created by one person – who is unpredictable.
Peter
HAVE MORE BABIES? WHO’S GOING TO PAY FOR THEM?
#natalists #babies #children #MothersDay #HavingMoreChildren
We just celebrated Mother’s Day.
Certain people want more mothers. Or, more accurately, more children.
Nedra Rhone, the “Real Life” columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, cites a lot of reasons women don’t have children, or as many children, as some would like. She discussed the issue in her May 8, 2025, column.
As Rhone, who happens to be a mother, points out, there are many reasons women don’t have children. She also says that some women may want children, but circumstances haven’t allowed them to have them.
In fact, the U.S. population, as is the case with most developed countries, is aging. People are not “replacing themselves” at a rate that keeps the population growing.
We want the population to grow for many reasons, including having enough workers to replace those who retire.
But this natalist movement appears aimed at creating children that only fit a certain demographic.
Immigrants can bolster the work force, and have lots of children, but most don’t match the desired demographic.
The elephant in the room, of course, is the cost of children. Rhone points out that it costs about $200,000 to raise a child from birth to age 18.
Not everyone has that kind of money, or the ability and opportunity to earn that much.
Women are a significant boost to the work force, but the natalists prefer women to stay home and raise children. Again, not every woman has the luxury, opportunity or desire to do that.
Then, as Rhone points out, some women don’t really want to bring children into the world as it currently is. What she doesn’t talk about in her column is what happens to children when they become adults.
With the cost of living, housing etc. as it is, many young adults cannot afford to live on their own, never mind starting a family. They often live with mom and dad long after age 18. Some are burdened with student debt. Some just can’t find work that pays enough to live independently.
The natalist and pro-life movements want children to be born at any cost – even if the mother dies doing so. But, they offer no means to ensure these children are properly fed, clothed, housed, educated and otherwise taken care of.
Many other countries do take care of their children. The citizens may pay dearly in taxes for it, but, to them, it’s well worth it.
These natalists say they love individual freedom. That is, unless you are a woman of child-bearing age. Would you want to have more children if you live in a place in which your medical providers are severely restricted in how they can care for you during and around your pregnancy?
This should not be a matter of debate. People should have the freedom to start and grow families as they see fit – or not.
The natalists can do much more to encourage more births by giving women – and men – the resources to be able to work AND tend to families, without unwanted sacrifices.
Being pro-life means not only encouraging life’s creation, but also making it easier for both parents and children to sustain a quality of life.
Peter
We just celebrated Mother’s Day.
Certain people want more mothers. Or, more accurately, more children.
Nedra Rhone, the “Real Life” columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, cites a lot of reasons women don’t have children, or as many children, as some would like. She discussed the issue in her May 8, 2025, column.
As Rhone, who happens to be a mother, points out, there are many reasons women don’t have children. She also says that some women may want children, but circumstances haven’t allowed them to have them.
In fact, the U.S. population, as is the case with most developed countries, is aging. People are not “replacing themselves” at a rate that keeps the population growing.
We want the population to grow for many reasons, including having enough workers to replace those who retire.
But this natalist movement appears aimed at creating children that only fit a certain demographic.
Immigrants can bolster the work force, and have lots of children, but most don’t match the desired demographic.
The elephant in the room, of course, is the cost of children. Rhone points out that it costs about $200,000 to raise a child from birth to age 18.
Not everyone has that kind of money, or the ability and opportunity to earn that much.
Women are a significant boost to the work force, but the natalists prefer women to stay home and raise children. Again, not every woman has the luxury, opportunity or desire to do that.
Then, as Rhone points out, some women don’t really want to bring children into the world as it currently is. What she doesn’t talk about in her column is what happens to children when they become adults.
With the cost of living, housing etc. as it is, many young adults cannot afford to live on their own, never mind starting a family. They often live with mom and dad long after age 18. Some are burdened with student debt. Some just can’t find work that pays enough to live independently.
The natalist and pro-life movements want children to be born at any cost – even if the mother dies doing so. But, they offer no means to ensure these children are properly fed, clothed, housed, educated and otherwise taken care of.
Many other countries do take care of their children. The citizens may pay dearly in taxes for it, but, to them, it’s well worth it.
These natalists say they love individual freedom. That is, unless you are a woman of child-bearing age. Would you want to have more children if you live in a place in which your medical providers are severely restricted in how they can care for you during and around your pregnancy?
This should not be a matter of debate. People should have the freedom to start and grow families as they see fit – or not.
The natalists can do much more to encourage more births by giving women – and men – the resources to be able to work AND tend to families, without unwanted sacrifices.
Being pro-life means not only encouraging life’s creation, but also making it easier for both parents and children to sustain a quality of life.
Peter
‘YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’VE GOT TILL IT’S GONE’
#government #GovernmentCuts #GovernmentEfficiency #GoodGovernment
“They paved paradise, put up a parking lot.”
That Joni Mitchell lyric rings true as certain government programs that many cherish get chopped.
We all think of government as too big, spending too much and we, as citizens, don’t really know what all those people do.
But, we learn all too well when we go to a government office for, say, Social Security information, a driver’s license or to mail a package.
When staff at those places get cut, the wait is much longer. In some places, you can wait hours to see a Social Security counselor, or to renew a driver’s license.
When government affects us, we feel the cuts.
MSNBC news anchor Ali Velshi pointed out that some of the government agencies we don’t know much about, or don’t hear about regularly, are working well BECAUSE we don’t hear much about them.
In other words, if they were full of fraud and waste, we would know it because a journalist, inspector general or other watchdog would find out and point it out.
By the way, oversight personnel are among the priority cuts in this milieu, BECAUSE those doing the cutting do not want people to know what they are doing, or how they are doing it, until it’s too late.
The cutting of government agencies and personnel that’s being done today seems haphazard, at best. The chainsaw approach will lead to some mistakes, Elon Musk says, and his Department of Government Efficiency will fix those mistakes as they occur, he said.
Everyone wants government to be as efficient as it can be. No one wants government, or those in it, to commit fraud.
But, throwing the baby out with the bathwater will lead to a dead, or badly hurt, baby. We may not know that until we actually have to wait hours for badly needed service, or, when benefits we are entitled to suddenly stop coming.
Government has a function in all of our lives. We don’t often hear about, or realize, those functions until they stop. As another Joni Mitchell lyric in the same song says: “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”
The best way to make government more efficient is to first look for the good that government does, and either let it be or enhance it.
If services are duplicated between or among agencies, consolidate those tasks in one place.
If tasks can be accomplished with fewer people, or if machines can replace people more efficiently, by all means make those changes.
People have said that government should be run like a business. But, government is different from business, in that the process of how things get done can be as important, or even more so, than the result.
Not all government work can be easily quantified. The service one might get from a good government employee who meets an individual’s need can be as important as the number of needs that person may meet in a given day, week, month or year.
And, if that person meets YOUR need properly, you won’t really care how much that person costs.
We all need government. We all need good government. We all should be willing to pay for good government that is as efficient and corruption-free as possible.
Peter
“They paved paradise, put up a parking lot.”
That Joni Mitchell lyric rings true as certain government programs that many cherish get chopped.
We all think of government as too big, spending too much and we, as citizens, don’t really know what all those people do.
But, we learn all too well when we go to a government office for, say, Social Security information, a driver’s license or to mail a package.
When staff at those places get cut, the wait is much longer. In some places, you can wait hours to see a Social Security counselor, or to renew a driver’s license.
When government affects us, we feel the cuts.
MSNBC news anchor Ali Velshi pointed out that some of the government agencies we don’t know much about, or don’t hear about regularly, are working well BECAUSE we don’t hear much about them.
In other words, if they were full of fraud and waste, we would know it because a journalist, inspector general or other watchdog would find out and point it out.
By the way, oversight personnel are among the priority cuts in this milieu, BECAUSE those doing the cutting do not want people to know what they are doing, or how they are doing it, until it’s too late.
The cutting of government agencies and personnel that’s being done today seems haphazard, at best. The chainsaw approach will lead to some mistakes, Elon Musk says, and his Department of Government Efficiency will fix those mistakes as they occur, he said.
Everyone wants government to be as efficient as it can be. No one wants government, or those in it, to commit fraud.
But, throwing the baby out with the bathwater will lead to a dead, or badly hurt, baby. We may not know that until we actually have to wait hours for badly needed service, or, when benefits we are entitled to suddenly stop coming.
Government has a function in all of our lives. We don’t often hear about, or realize, those functions until they stop. As another Joni Mitchell lyric in the same song says: “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”
The best way to make government more efficient is to first look for the good that government does, and either let it be or enhance it.
If services are duplicated between or among agencies, consolidate those tasks in one place.
If tasks can be accomplished with fewer people, or if machines can replace people more efficiently, by all means make those changes.
People have said that government should be run like a business. But, government is different from business, in that the process of how things get done can be as important, or even more so, than the result.
Not all government work can be easily quantified. The service one might get from a good government employee who meets an individual’s need can be as important as the number of needs that person may meet in a given day, week, month or year.
And, if that person meets YOUR need properly, you won’t really care how much that person costs.
We all need government. We all need good government. We all should be willing to pay for good government that is as efficient and corruption-free as possible.
Peter
DO YOU FEAR COMING TO WORK? YOU MAY BE IN THE WRONG PLACE
#employers #employees #ToxicWorkEnvironments #BullyEmployers #WorkingOurOfFear #ServantLeaders
Certain employers believe fear is the best motivator.
If you are afraid to come to work, or if you fear doing something in your job that would upset your boss(es), can you really work like that?
In the employer’s mind, they can dominate people who are afraid.
In non-employment parlance, that’s called bullying.
Employers would be better served, and get more from employees, if they created a work environment that was not only relatively free of fear and toxic behavior, but also inspiring and protective of employees.
Employers who believe their employees are their best and most valuable resources will protect those employees.
Certainly, with any job, there will be chores that an employee does not love to do.
But, those chores should be few and well distributed among employees.
Mostly, though, employees – even if they don’t necessarily look forward to coming to work – should feel they will be well treated at work.
They should feel that their contributions are not only valuable but cherished.
If they feel that way, they will give the employee all their efforts, perhaps even more than the employer is paying for.
In short, employers should serve their clients AND their employees.
How does a bully employer expect his or her employees to perform under duress?
How does such an employer expect employees to perform with chaos in the workplace?
How does such an employer expect employees to perform in a toxic work environment, in which they are harassed or taken advantage of?
Remember, employees are people. They are indeed valuable tools, but they are people first.
They expect to be treated with dignity and respect.
Remember, as an employer, you don’t know everything. You may know a lot, but you don’t know everything. Employees, more often than not, know things that you don’t.
As an employer, you are not the only one with valid ideas. Some of your employees will think of things that you did not.
So, as an employer, don’t be a bully. Instead, be a servant leader.
If you want people to work hard for you, you have to work hard for them.
You may not be able to give them everything they want, or even everything they need. But you have to show that you are giving them as much as you are able.
If you do, people will want to work for you.
If you don’t, you’ll continue to be chronically short of staff, and your company will not perform for your clients the way the clients expect.
Serve your employees, and they will serve you to a much greater degree.
Peter
Certain employers believe fear is the best motivator.
If you are afraid to come to work, or if you fear doing something in your job that would upset your boss(es), can you really work like that?
In the employer’s mind, they can dominate people who are afraid.
In non-employment parlance, that’s called bullying.
Employers would be better served, and get more from employees, if they created a work environment that was not only relatively free of fear and toxic behavior, but also inspiring and protective of employees.
Employers who believe their employees are their best and most valuable resources will protect those employees.
Certainly, with any job, there will be chores that an employee does not love to do.
But, those chores should be few and well distributed among employees.
Mostly, though, employees – even if they don’t necessarily look forward to coming to work – should feel they will be well treated at work.
They should feel that their contributions are not only valuable but cherished.
If they feel that way, they will give the employee all their efforts, perhaps even more than the employer is paying for.
In short, employers should serve their clients AND their employees.
How does a bully employer expect his or her employees to perform under duress?
How does such an employer expect employees to perform with chaos in the workplace?
How does such an employer expect employees to perform in a toxic work environment, in which they are harassed or taken advantage of?
Remember, employees are people. They are indeed valuable tools, but they are people first.
They expect to be treated with dignity and respect.
Remember, as an employer, you don’t know everything. You may know a lot, but you don’t know everything. Employees, more often than not, know things that you don’t.
As an employer, you are not the only one with valid ideas. Some of your employees will think of things that you did not.
So, as an employer, don’t be a bully. Instead, be a servant leader.
If you want people to work hard for you, you have to work hard for them.
You may not be able to give them everything they want, or even everything they need. But you have to show that you are giving them as much as you are able.
If you do, people will want to work for you.
If you don’t, you’ll continue to be chronically short of staff, and your company will not perform for your clients the way the clients expect.
Serve your employees, and they will serve you to a much greater degree.
Peter
SHOOTING FROM THE HIP CAN LEAD TO MISSES
#think #do #FeelGood #RunGovernmentLikeABusiness
Don’t overthink it.
Think before you act.
Measure twice, cut once.
If it feels good, do it.
These adages produce contradictions. As one goes through life, one has to make decisions.
If one has a job, one has to make decisions on the job.
But, how do YOU make decisions? Are you more spontaneous? Or, do you think, and think again, before you act?
If you work in government, how you get to a result is as important, sometimes more so, than the result itself.
Those who “want to run government like a business” are misguided.
Certainly, rules can be a burden. But most of them are there to ensure fairness to all in the process, and to be sure those acting are doing so legally, ethically and in compliance with regulations.
It’s easy to sit back and say we don’t need all those rules and laws. Those who feel that way may be reveling in how the federal government is currently operating.
But, acting quickly and decisively can actually hurt people who don’t deserve to be hurt.
When procedure is important, as it is in most work situations, it’s always better to think before you act.
In social situations, impulsiveness sometimes can be fun.
Today, however, mistakes are happening all around us. Cruelty seems to be desirable. It may seem fun to watch, but those watching with glee could be hurt by much of this.
We may not know how badly it will hurt the unsuspecting until the damage is already done.
Certainly, it’s easier to wield a hatchet than use a scalpel.
But, hatchets are imprecise. Mistakes will occur.
When so many people could be affected, more thought is necessary before acting.
Analysis paralysis can exist in some situations. But, the actor needs to know how his actions will help or hurt, and whom his actions will help or hurt.
So, if you think before you act, generally you are better for it.
Remember to call before you dig. Measure twice, cut once. Give more than a passing thought to important decisions.
You need to know what, or who, will be hurt by your actions. If you don’t care what, or who, gets hurt, shame on you.
Remember, someone watches every action. Sometimes, you may not know who is watching. But, everyone should strive to do the right thing, no matter who is watching.
Peter
Don’t overthink it.
Think before you act.
Measure twice, cut once.
If it feels good, do it.
These adages produce contradictions. As one goes through life, one has to make decisions.
If one has a job, one has to make decisions on the job.
But, how do YOU make decisions? Are you more spontaneous? Or, do you think, and think again, before you act?
If you work in government, how you get to a result is as important, sometimes more so, than the result itself.
Those who “want to run government like a business” are misguided.
Certainly, rules can be a burden. But most of them are there to ensure fairness to all in the process, and to be sure those acting are doing so legally, ethically and in compliance with regulations.
It’s easy to sit back and say we don’t need all those rules and laws. Those who feel that way may be reveling in how the federal government is currently operating.
But, acting quickly and decisively can actually hurt people who don’t deserve to be hurt.
When procedure is important, as it is in most work situations, it’s always better to think before you act.
In social situations, impulsiveness sometimes can be fun.
Today, however, mistakes are happening all around us. Cruelty seems to be desirable. It may seem fun to watch, but those watching with glee could be hurt by much of this.
We may not know how badly it will hurt the unsuspecting until the damage is already done.
Certainly, it’s easier to wield a hatchet than use a scalpel.
But, hatchets are imprecise. Mistakes will occur.
When so many people could be affected, more thought is necessary before acting.
Analysis paralysis can exist in some situations. But, the actor needs to know how his actions will help or hurt, and whom his actions will help or hurt.
So, if you think before you act, generally you are better for it.
Remember to call before you dig. Measure twice, cut once. Give more than a passing thought to important decisions.
You need to know what, or who, will be hurt by your actions. If you don’t care what, or who, gets hurt, shame on you.
Remember, someone watches every action. Sometimes, you may not know who is watching. But, everyone should strive to do the right thing, no matter who is watching.
Peter
HEAT VS. FLAVOR
#heat #flavor #SpicyFood #SeasonedFood #cooking #eating
Some people like spicy food.
The hotter, the better.
Others prefer food that is seasoned, but not spicy.
Seasoning adds flavor. Heat is NOT flavor.
Eating should be a decadent pleasure. Your taste buds should thoroughly enjoy what you are eating, with other parts of the body mostly unaffected.
When eating overly spicy food, other parts of the body can react in unpleasant ways.
Your lips and tongue may tingle. Your nose may run. Your ears may get hot. That’s not to mention what may be happening, or will happen, in your gut.
In an Amazon TV ad, the lady who makes the spicy sauce for chicken wings tells the eater: “Don’t touch your face” with the sauce on his hands. After all, his face might burn.
If you take pleasure in eating, it should not be an endurance test.
Many of those who enjoy spicy food don’t get the reactions listed above. Or, if they do, they relish the displeasure.
Some even want to make EVERYTHING they eat spicy. Some chefs even put spicy peppers or pepper flakes in chocolate, or other sweet things.
For those not expecting heat, it can take pleasure out of enjoying something sweet.
Certainly, different people have different tastes and tolerances.
But, let’s not confuse heat with flavor. Heat is, well, just heat. Flavor is the proper mix of tastes and seasoning that turns bland food into something very tasty.
Those who cook or serve need to warn diners of heat in certain dishes. Chinese and other ethnic restaurants often do that.
But, if you are a cook who loves heat, don’t presume everyone does.
Don’t presume that something you may think of as “mild,” or, with a very gentle “kick” that everyone will react the same way when eating it.
If you are sensitive to heat and you visit places like New Orleans, ask a lot of questions before you order food.
In general, cajun food is spicy and creole food is not.
So, if are among those who consider spicy food flavorful, other people don’t see heat as flavor.
If you cook for others whose tastes you may not know, season the food as needed without the heat.
Those who like the heat will add hot sauce to it, while those who don’t like heat will enjoy the food as prepared.
Heat should be used FOR cooking, not necessarily in cooking.
Peter
Some people like spicy food.
The hotter, the better.
Others prefer food that is seasoned, but not spicy.
Seasoning adds flavor. Heat is NOT flavor.
Eating should be a decadent pleasure. Your taste buds should thoroughly enjoy what you are eating, with other parts of the body mostly unaffected.
When eating overly spicy food, other parts of the body can react in unpleasant ways.
Your lips and tongue may tingle. Your nose may run. Your ears may get hot. That’s not to mention what may be happening, or will happen, in your gut.
In an Amazon TV ad, the lady who makes the spicy sauce for chicken wings tells the eater: “Don’t touch your face” with the sauce on his hands. After all, his face might burn.
If you take pleasure in eating, it should not be an endurance test.
Many of those who enjoy spicy food don’t get the reactions listed above. Or, if they do, they relish the displeasure.
Some even want to make EVERYTHING they eat spicy. Some chefs even put spicy peppers or pepper flakes in chocolate, or other sweet things.
For those not expecting heat, it can take pleasure out of enjoying something sweet.
Certainly, different people have different tastes and tolerances.
But, let’s not confuse heat with flavor. Heat is, well, just heat. Flavor is the proper mix of tastes and seasoning that turns bland food into something very tasty.
Those who cook or serve need to warn diners of heat in certain dishes. Chinese and other ethnic restaurants often do that.
But, if you are a cook who loves heat, don’t presume everyone does.
Don’t presume that something you may think of as “mild,” or, with a very gentle “kick” that everyone will react the same way when eating it.
If you are sensitive to heat and you visit places like New Orleans, ask a lot of questions before you order food.
In general, cajun food is spicy and creole food is not.
So, if are among those who consider spicy food flavorful, other people don’t see heat as flavor.
If you cook for others whose tastes you may not know, season the food as needed without the heat.
Those who like the heat will add hot sauce to it, while those who don’t like heat will enjoy the food as prepared.
Heat should be used FOR cooking, not necessarily in cooking.
Peter
GRATITUDE IS GIVEN; RESPECT IS EARNED
#gratitude #respect #DemandingGratitude #DemandingRespect #people
It’s been said we all should have an attitude of gratitude.
Indeed, we need to be grateful for all that is good in our lives – family, friends and other blessings we may have.
We should also respect those who earn our respect.
But, when gratitude and respect are demanded, rather than earned or given, it sets a different tone.
If you don’t ask, the answer is always no. That adage plays well in sales, but not in terms of gratitude and respect.
If you have earned respect and been given gratitude, whether stated or not, you should not have to ask for or demand it. It’s probably better that you don’t know someone respects you, or is grateful to you. Gratitude and respect are not – or should not be – transactable.
I’ll scratch your back, if you scratch mine. That is a transaction. Those who ask for or demand gratitude or respect are likely not going to return the favor. Nor should the giver of gratitude and respect expect anything in return.
Be nice to me. One may see that on a T-shirt as a joke. But, if someone is constantly asking for someone, or everyone, to be nice to him or her, it makes one wonder why that person would have to ask in the first place. Is everyone mean to him or her? Does everyone not give him or her the time of day?
If the answer to either question is yes, the person has to ask himself or herself why that is.
Very likely, it has less to do with the people with whom the person interacts, and more to do with the person himself.
Who’s going to win this battle? I am. I usually do.
Such a question may be posed to a parent with an antsy or misbehaving child. To the parent, it should not be a battle to be won. The parent should have full control of the situation. If the parent does not, it’s usually on the parent, not the child.
When an adult is in the same situation with another adult, and that person thinks he or she always wins no matter what, there may be some injustice there.
It’s my way, or the highway. People who feel this way have an oversized sense of self, which can be destructive.
In most human interactions, goals can be the same, but the paths to get to them may be different.
In other instances, the goals are as different as the paths. That can lead to impasse, or worse.
To summarize, treat others as you would like to be treated. Don’t expect people to treat you differently from how you treat them.
Try to give gratitude and earn respect whenever possible. Expect nothing in return – not even the acknowledgement of the respect or gratitude.
Then, give gratitude and respect, whether or not you get it in return.
If you do right by others, others are more likely to do right by you. There should be no need for demands. If you give with good intentions, chances are you will get in return.
Peter
It’s been said we all should have an attitude of gratitude.
Indeed, we need to be grateful for all that is good in our lives – family, friends and other blessings we may have.
We should also respect those who earn our respect.
But, when gratitude and respect are demanded, rather than earned or given, it sets a different tone.
If you don’t ask, the answer is always no. That adage plays well in sales, but not in terms of gratitude and respect.
If you have earned respect and been given gratitude, whether stated or not, you should not have to ask for or demand it. It’s probably better that you don’t know someone respects you, or is grateful to you. Gratitude and respect are not – or should not be – transactable.
I’ll scratch your back, if you scratch mine. That is a transaction. Those who ask for or demand gratitude or respect are likely not going to return the favor. Nor should the giver of gratitude and respect expect anything in return.
Be nice to me. One may see that on a T-shirt as a joke. But, if someone is constantly asking for someone, or everyone, to be nice to him or her, it makes one wonder why that person would have to ask in the first place. Is everyone mean to him or her? Does everyone not give him or her the time of day?
If the answer to either question is yes, the person has to ask himself or herself why that is.
Very likely, it has less to do with the people with whom the person interacts, and more to do with the person himself.
Who’s going to win this battle? I am. I usually do.
Such a question may be posed to a parent with an antsy or misbehaving child. To the parent, it should not be a battle to be won. The parent should have full control of the situation. If the parent does not, it’s usually on the parent, not the child.
When an adult is in the same situation with another adult, and that person thinks he or she always wins no matter what, there may be some injustice there.
It’s my way, or the highway. People who feel this way have an oversized sense of self, which can be destructive.
In most human interactions, goals can be the same, but the paths to get to them may be different.
In other instances, the goals are as different as the paths. That can lead to impasse, or worse.
To summarize, treat others as you would like to be treated. Don’t expect people to treat you differently from how you treat them.
Try to give gratitude and earn respect whenever possible. Expect nothing in return – not even the acknowledgement of the respect or gratitude.
Then, give gratitude and respect, whether or not you get it in return.
If you do right by others, others are more likely to do right by you. There should be no need for demands. If you give with good intentions, chances are you will get in return.
Peter