Category Archives: Uncategorized

MEDICARE’S EFFICIENCY

Posted on by

Medicare gets bad press as a big federal expense, but it is the hero of a recent expose on health care costs.
In fact, journalist and author Steven Brill, who investigated hospital costs nationwide, found huge markups on things you purchase as part of your hospital care.
Brill wrote the piece for Time magazine, and Time Managing Editor Richard Stengel cites the 10,000 percent markup hospitals put on acetaminophen as just one example.
In fact, Brill said on ABC’s This Week Sunday morning show Feb. 24, 2013, that if the introductory age for Medicare were lowered, not raised, health care costs would drop.
Unlike most businesses, hospitals charge you for everything you use, including the little paper cup you get with your acetaminophen in it. It probably costs the hospital pennies per cup to buy, but they might charge a few bucks for it.
And prices vary from place to place, as consumer adviser Clark Howard cited in an Atlanta Journal-Constitution column Feb. 28,2013.
What’s happening is that if you don’t have any insurance, you’ll get billed the marked-up price for your hospital care. Insurers, because they represent lots of people, can negotiate those prices down. And Medicare, the federal health insurance program for senior citizens, is only allowed to pay, by law, somewhere around the hospital’s cost for the item.
We can certainly debate whether hospitals would lose money if more people were on Medicare. Health care workers sing the blues over how little Medicare pays for things, and some providers won’t treat Medicare patients for that reason.
We also know that hospitals and other health care providers have to make up for those people whom they treat, but who can’t, or won’t, pay them. Hence, they mark up bills for paying patients to help recoup.
Brill also pointed out on This Week that Medicare processes claims for less than a dollar per claim, while private insurers pay about $20 to process each claim.
The point the Brill story makes is that insurance lowers medical costs. Medicare lowers them the best, but would a system in which everyone were on Medicare be sustainable? Would hospitals and other health care providers be able to survive on Medicare pricing?
Unlike other businesses, in which technological advantages and competition LOWER costs, technological innovation and competition can RAISE costs in the health care arena. Suppose Institution X get a CT scanner. Institution Y across town will want one, too, even though one scanner would probably service the whole area.
Institution Y doesn’t want to send its patients to Institution X for CT scans, out of fear that patients will elect to get all of their care at Institution X out of convenience. What if Institution Y LOWERED its prices because it doesn’t have the overhead to maintain the expensive CT scanner? If you cut your hand, would you want to pay the overhead for a CT scanner just to get a bandage?
The point is that people need to see, and care about, what things cost and how they are billed. Insurance makes people less concerned about that, but even though the patient may not be paying much of the cost, he still should negotiate bills. Don’t pay $5 for a paper medicine cup that you know costs the hospital a few cents. Or, better yet, have insurance for everyone and have the insurers negotiate prices down, Brill points out.
Health care is tricky, and there is plenty the average person doesn’t know, or care about. The Brill piece helped expose some of it, but it will be tough to get health care costs down considerably. Also, if we could reduce the costs considerably, how many health care providers can survive with the lower margins? Health care costs are high, in part, because we, as patients, don’t know where the money goes. If everyone were losing money, the system would have changed a long time ago. Someone, or some entities, benefit largely from this lack of knowledge. The money trail needs to be exposed, and the Brill piece goes a long way to do that.
If you don’t want to worry so much about costs, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. Not only will it help you save money on some medical care, it can help you earn enough money, perhaps, that you can easily pay for anything you need.

Peter

HANGING EVERY WHICH WAY

Posted on by

Are you hanging on, hanging tough or hanging it up?
Or, are you just hanging?
Whatever you feel your state is, it might have something to do with whom you are hanging around.
Sure, family and old friends are great to have. They are great to have fun with. But, are these people you love keeping you from something better?
Do you feel the need to find new people, perhaps who have been very successful, to see whether you can get better?
As most leadership experts say, success starts in the mind. If the people you are closest to are telling you that you can’t do something, or that something is not for you (because it’s not for THEM), do you feel that they might be wrong?
Sometimes, it takes a new set of people to give you perspective on what you can do. Sometimes, it means reading good books, listening to good CDs and finding new people to hang around with.
You might need people who will tell you that “hanging” is not an option. You have to work on yourself. You have to take action to get out of your hanging state. You have to find the people, the organization(s), the reading material that will change the way you look at life – and yourself.
Are you working JUST to earn a living? Do you hate what you are doing, but think you can’t leave because your family and friends told you how great your security is? Working for someone else means you are building someone else’s dream. It’s certainly OK to work for someone else, if you are also building your own dream.
Take the story of the company owner who interviews a prospective employee. He shows the prospective employee pictures of a big house, with a beautiful view and lots of fancy cars in the driveway. He tells the prospect that if he is hired and does a good job, “all this will be mine!”
That’s how it feels at many jobs. Careers can be rewarding, but in today’s world, careers are cut short by machines, foreign workers and the like. What your father did for 40 years may not last you 40 years, no matter your education.
You may not be able to hang on, or hang tough, until you can retire comfortably. Some 40 years ago, change came more slowly. Today, change is constant and instant. It’s not a matter of rolling with change, but those who are most comfortable adapting to change are going to be the most desirable and have the most longevity in the work force.
It’s also important to have a Plan B, in case your best-laid career plans go awry. For a look at one of those options, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. You can work full time at your job, and part time on your fortune. Perhaps, one day, YOU can tell your boss, to quote the Johnny PayCheck song, to “Take This Job & Shove It.”
Change is the operative word in any situation today. If you hang around long enough, you won’t recognize your workplace. If you hang tough, and deal with change as it comes, you may survive longer than most. If you can hang it up on YOUR terms, you will be one of the lucky ones.
If you don’t pay attention to change, even if you don’t like it, you could be hung out to dry. Fighting to stop or resist change could leave you hanging, eventually.
So don’t just hang. Improve. Take action. Find the right people to hang around with, lest you get hanged.
Peter

THE GREAT INFLECTION

Posted on by

We are easing out of the Great Recession, though it is still difficult for some.
We are heading into the Great Inflection, according to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.
We are in a hyper-connected – not just connected – world, Friedman asserts. We are seeing more wealth created, and much better productivity in the workplace.
But, that isn’t translating into lower unemployment. You see, some of the jobs lost in the Great Recession will never return.
Think back to the time when World War II ended, the Industrial Revolution was in full swing, labor unions had great clout and – here’s the big one – technological progress was relatively slow.
If you got laid off from a job, chances are it was a slow period for your employer. When things picked up, you were back to work. Men – most married women did not work then – would crow about “steady” work. In other words, there were few peaks and valleys in their business. They got a paycheck every week for their 40 hours, plus, for some, the bonus of overtime.
College education was for the few. Parents wanted their sons to get out and work, and their daughters to get married. That idyllic life didn’t work out for everyone, but it did for a large number of people.
EACH DOWNTURN MEANS JOBS LOST FOREVER
Contrast that period to today. If you have a job, you fear change, because it comes quickly and you don’t know how that change will affect you, until it does. Companies reorganize one day, and a few months later they do it again. Each time, usually, more people lose their jobs, replaced by some machine which, likely, will be “old” technology a year later.
As companies cut jobs, many of them are creating new and different ones, either at the same time, or a short time later. The people being cut may not fill the bill for the new positions. Something to think about: if your current job is a series of repetitive tasks that don’t require you to create anything, you should be thinking about learning something new. Chances are, your job will not last as long as you want it to.
Some of the folks from those earlier working days, once they hit a certain age, balked at learning “new stuff.” They were counting the days until they could retire. Today, if you don’t learn new stuff, regardless of your age, you will be gone, probably sooner than you want to be.
Friedman points out that with rapid change, the workforce has to keep learning. Your schooling, whatever it is, won’t last you the rest of your life anymore. It will always be with you, but education today is merely an entry vehicle. The people who survive in today’s workplace are those who are always learning, who can deal with change in stride and can foresee what might be coming. As Friedman puts it, you have to provide added value to the technology.
For those of you either shut out of the modern job market, or who live in fear that one day you will be, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. It’s one of the best of several ways you can create wealth WHILE you await your fate in the job market. One day, perhaps, you might not even need the job market.
In much of the discussion about employment and the economy today, many long for those old days. Jobs were “protected.” Work was, for many, “steady.” Workers had a certain security that they were convinced was never going away. Many today fight the changes that connectivity, technology and other productivity enhancements have brought. They want it stopped. But, it’s like standing on railroad tracks and holding out your arms, thinking you are going to stop one of those bullet trains.
Progress will happen with or without you. You can choose to fight the Great Inflection, or you can work to be part of it. If you can’t beat it, either join it or look for a new plan. Put your fate in YOUR hands.
Peter

COLLEGE PREP: LESS RIGOR, MORE FREEDOM

Posted on by

Many look back fondly to their high school days.
Perhaps their college days were even better.
But Stan Beiner, head of the Epstein School in Sandy Springs, Ga., just outside Atlanta, believes we are turning our middle school students over to high schools who will prepare them for colleges that don’t exist.
They’ll get lots and lots of homework. They’ll take lots of Advanced Placement and honors classes. They will have multiple extracurricular activities.
In other words, to paraphrase Beiner, we are preparing our kids for the “rigors” and “challenges” of a tough four years of college.
If you have gone to college, how did it compare with high school? Were you faced with tough task-master professors beating you up, and bogging you down with the drudgery of academia?
Beiner does not de-emphasize school work. Contrarily, school work should be an integral part of both high school and college. But neither high school nor college should be a mere endurance test. Both should teach students the balance of school work, a part-time job, extracurricular activities and, yes, fun!
“The high school years should be about friends, sports, clubs, youth groups, summers off and, of course, school work,” Beiner says. He uses the story of how he and his wife were informed by his child’s private school that 10th-graders could be invited to college orientations. The parents politely declined. The only expectations they had for their 15-year-old was that she focus on her classes, play sports if she wanted, engage and debate youth group politics, hang out with her friends and worry about boys, he said.
Before anyone expresses outrage at what may seem to him as a lackadaisical attitude of parenting, think about this: when you left high school for college, you were on your own. You had a looser schedule. In some cases, you could set your own schedule. You could, say, arrange your classes to have every Friday or Monday off. In most cases, as long as you did the work, the teachers didn’t care how you did it, as long as you didn’t cheat.
In an old school of thought, piling homework on high school kids was a way to keep them “out of trouble.” There was little worse, in some minds, than a teenager with too much time on his hands.
The fallacy of that argument is that no amount of homework would put the kids most at risk of getting in trouble on the straight and narrow. They simply would blow it off. Meanwhile, bogging down good kids with homework, particularly the kind that is deliberately designed to be tedious and time-consuming, keeps them from getting into activities that would enhance their education and experience – sports, arts or a part-time job, for instance.
They may also miss out on the fun that is an integral part of growing up. They may soon grow resentful of the “prison” they are in. They may “act out” in response.
Beiner’s ideas may be over the top for some. But his point is that college is NOTHING like high school. Anyone who has gone to college knows this. Also, just as important as school work, a student needs to have freedom to learn to manage and use time wisely. This will also help students manage money better – watching what they spend and how they spend it – on their own. The good students will mature more quickly. Those at risk for trouble may find it sooner.
Speaking of managing time, is anyone out there working full time at a job, and looking to build a fortune that could retire them early? If so, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. A few hours a week, without affecting what you are already doing, may change your life.
Beiner says it’s no wonder that cheating, eating disorders and depression are too common among students. He advises parents to make sure kids have time to do what they want, and find out who they are. With today’s gadgets, you need to encourage them to get up from the computer and go out and “play.” Do what they need to do, but also do what they LOVE to do.
In Beiner’s mind, they’ll be much more prepared for college.
Peter

SMALL TOWNS, BIG CITIES, GROWING AS PEOPLE

Posted on by

Many of us grow up in small towns, rural areas or neighborhoods of larger cities and grow fond of the area, the people etc.
But, when we enter adulthood, perhaps going off to college, it hits us: we may not realize our full potential if we settle down back home. Settle may be the operative word here.
New York Times columnist David Brooks discussed this phenomenon. He wondered whether, in the meritocracy vs. government race, it would be so bad if meritocracy won.
In a nutshell, a young person leaves home and goes off to college. He realizes his limited potential if he moved back home, where only a small percentage of the folks living there had college degrees. He decides to move to a place where, as Brooks quotes, up to 50% of the people have college degrees, i.e. San Francisco, San Jose, Boston, Washington or the Raleigh-Durham area of North Carolina.
The folks back home may call him snooty for not wanting to move home. But he has a degree from an elite university, i.e. Stanford or an Ivy League school. He got good enough grades back home to get into the prestigious school, did well once he got there and now HAS to reside where people are more like the new him.
WAITING TO HEAR THOSE WORDS
A friend relayed the story of his childhood. He grew up on a farm in Georgia. When he wasn’t in school, he was working on the farm. He enjoyed some aspects of farming, but it was backbreaking work.
Finally, in his teen years, he told his father that he did not want to do this the rest of his life.
His father, it turned out, had been waiting years to hear those words.
Farming taught him hard work. But it also taught him how NOT to spend his life. There was so much more out there.
He stayed in Georgia, but had a superb sales career.
So what’s wrong with growing up in a small town, or rural area, or a specific neighborhood of a city? Nothing at all. But the kids grow up in an age of equality – everyone is the same and should be treated as such. When they move on to bigger and better things, they have to learn to go for distinction. They must be more accomplished, more cutting edge, to thrive in the new world, as Brooks points out.
This distinction even occurs in higher education. Many universities look to hire professors from the elite schools. Even the graduates they produce are not good enough, Brooks says.
The world demands innovation, collaboration, global thinking. Where one has grown up often thrives on a collective sameness and routine. There is security in sameness. There is tradition in sameness. There is equality in sameness. But for those who want to thrive in the world, change must be the operative word.
There is good news for those who may live in the sameness of “home,” wherever that is. There are many ways for you to prosper without leaving home. To check out one of the best, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. Like the young college grad who needs to move out of his comfort zone into the bigger world, those left at home may have to leap outside their comfort zones. And, it can be done without leaving home.
The moral here is that sameness and equality may not improve the world as it should. Those seeking to see their great potential thrive have to depart their world of sameness and venture out into the world of competition, and, yes, discomfort.
It isn’t to say that they shouldn’t help the folks back home. But, they don’t have to settle for the sameness of their parents’ world. The more people who jump from their comfort zones to find their full potential, the better the world will be. Striving to be equal has far worse consequences than striving to be better.
Peter

TALK IS CHEAP; DIALOGUE IS VALUABLE

Posted on by

“Can we talk here?”
Comedienne Joan Rivers made that question famous.
The point was not for dialogue. SHE was going to do all the talking.
When parents want to “talk” to their children, presuming they are not yet adults, how interested are the parents in what a child might have to say, unless it’s an admission of wrongdoing?
The parents want to do all the talking.
That point was sung home in the Rod Stewart tune, “Young Turks.” When the boy and girl ran away from home, the boy wrote a letter to the girl’s parents to announce that they had given birth to a son. He apologized that it had to come to that, but, as the lyric goes, “There ain’t no point in talking if nobody’s listening, so we just ran away.”
Talking can be productive ONLY IF someone is listening, and is allowed to talk back. With children, talking back can be a punishable sin. With teens, allowing them to talk may give parents clues about what they are really thinking, what they may be hiding and what they may be planning. Getting a jump on that can mean the difference between keeping the kids at home, or having them run away.
Talking may be cheap. It’s dialogue, and listening, that are valuable.
When people can talk to each other, see the other’s point of view, much good can happen.
Dictators can have power, but that power is dwarfed by good dialogue.
DICTATORS VS. DIALOGUE
In a dictatorship, things can get done. When there is dialogue, things can get done more willingly, therefore better and more powerfully.
When there is dialogue, each side of the conversation may not see ALL the results they are looking for. It may be more like everyone getting SOME of the results they were looking for. That type of talk, usually followed by a handshake, a hug or a kiss, gets the kind of results EVERYONE involved can buy into.
Some people prefer to have guns, or other weapons, do their talking. The results may be desirable to the aggressor, but how much more powerful is resolving a dispute with words rather than weapons?
For that to happen, people have to be willing to accept, even embrace, scenarios they don’t entirely create. They have to listen, talk, and let others talk back.
Some things are best left unsaid. Make sure that when you are having a stressful conversation that you think before you talk. You can make clear what you are thinking without using inappropriate or insulting words. If someone utters such a thing, the listener has to realize it was said in a time of stress. The meaning may be totally different from what the listener perceives, because the listener may also be under stress.
Not all conversations are pleasant. Some don’t have to be unpleasant. Try to make your part of a conversation as informative as possible, without unnecessary emotion. Try to listen hard to the other person’s information without unnecessary emotion.
For a way to earn potentially significant income with less talk and more listening, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. Let the tools, and others, do the talking for you.
In general, however, speak softly, listen hard and let others talk back. You’ll sense real power in great dialogue.
Peter

BE A GOOD PERSON: SUFFER FOOLS GLADLY

Posted on by

He didn’t suffer fools gladly.
That’s an old expression with biblical origins that is used to describe a person who didn’t tolerate well those who he thought were fools – or at least not as smart, as informed or as well-versed as he.
To many, this is an honorable trait, as New York Times columnist David Brooks points out. But, as Brooks says, good manners permit one to suffer fools gladly.
Manners have gotten a bad rap over the years, just as political correctness has.
Brooks points out that when someone who doesn’t suffer fools gladly humiliates someone, he can look to be the bigger fool.
Let’s take it a step further. Suppose you worked for someone who did not suffer fools gladly. How would you feel when he didn’t show the necessary patience as you were learning your job? Sometimes, the fool you don’t suffer gladly is merely someone who disagrees with you. We’ve seen in Washington, D.C., in recent times, how not suffering fools gladly can actually prevent things from getting done.
Speaking of Washington, D.C., Maureen Dowd, another New York Times columnist, pointed out the differences between President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. Biden relishes negotiating deals on Capitol Hill, while the president has little patience for it, Dowd says. Apparently, the president does not suffer fools gladly, if Dowd’s assessment is correct. Biden, on the other hand, loves to.
CONFIDENCE ON THE INSIDE, HUMILITY, GENEROSITY, INTEGRITY OUTSIDE
It’s been said that good people have three characteristics, among many. They have humility, integrity and generosity. Perhaps one can have integrity and not suffer fools gladly. But it would be difficult to be humble and generous, and not suffer fools gladly.
It’s OK to be confident. It’s certainly OK, even desirable, to think well of yourself – on the inside. But being humble means you don’t flaunt that confidence by making others feel less worthy. You do your thing well, and give others credit.
Being generous means that you are blessed to have what you have, and are willing to share with those who may not have what you have. The more you give, the more you get in most situations.
Go back to the employer-employee relationship. A humble, generous employer with integrity is someone everyone would want to work for. He shows patience with the employee when needed. He appreciates the efforts his employees give him. He generously pays for those efforts. He realizes that without those employees, he would not be where he is. Because of his integrity, he always does the right thing, regardless of the effect on him.
He realizes his employees may not know as much as he does, because they are not in position to know. But they are not fools to be suffered.
He is not just being polite, and showing good manners by being humble, generous and having integrity. He’s being a good business person and a great employer. Those characteristics greatly improve his chances of success.
He also believes that his success depends on how much he helps others succeed. If you are a humble, generous person with integrity, and have the desire to help others like you succeed, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. That could be the vehicle to fulfill your dream of helping others, thus helping yourself.
It takes many to make a world. It’s OK to know something that someone else doesn’t know. Just don’t be afraid to share what you know. Share it with humility, integrity and generosity. Suffer “fools” gladly, then give them credit for accomplishments. If you don’t, you could look like the bigger fool.
Peter

SPENDING: YOURS, MINE, OURS

Posted on by

We’ve all been taught that spending less and saving more will increase our wealth over time. No one disputes that.
When we want to cut household spending, most of us prefer to do it gradually, rather than all at once. For example, we may decide to go to Starbucks three times a week, rather than five.
As we get used to three times a week, we may go down to two, then one, then none. Then, we see a Starbucks run as a real treat, and do it once in a while. After all, the coffee you bring in your Thermos may not be Starbucks, and you may long for a treat once in a while as a reward for your good behavior. It’s OK to splurge, but not as a habit.
The point is, we feel cuts in household spending directly. They are a real sacrifice, as we see them, but we do it for a better, long-term outcome.
Then, there is government spending. It can best be called a real illusion. Yes, real illusion is an oxymoron, but it applies here. First, the money is REAL, even though the government can print it at will. It’s yours, mine and ours. The illusion comes in the concept that we would not really feel cuts in government spending, since so much of it is waste, so it should be relatively easy to cut.
We can prove that by watching people who advocate government spending cuts in the aggregate, but when it cuts things close to where they live, they complain bitterly.
We can debate whether government should be so intertwined with the economy, but the fact is, it is. It is tough to reduce its importance to the overall economic well-being.
Many private industries, defense contractors, for example, have, as their largest customer, the government. Cuts in defense could affect lots of private sector jobs. And just watch the almost annual debate over cutting superfluous military bases. The communities, and states, in which those bases are located would be hurt badly, even though closing such bases makes perfect economic sense from afar. Perhaps those bases are outdated. Perhaps they are just not needed for the country’s defense. But the shopkeepers, restaurants and other businesses whose clientele lives or works at these bases often go out of business when their base closes.
UNNECESSARY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS VS.HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT
Many see certain government departments as unnecessary. Certainly, the usefulness of some agencies is debatable, but cutting such agencies in their entirety, all at once, would puts hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more people out of work in a job market that can’t find work for those currently idle.
Proponents of such spending cuts would simply accuse those laid-off government workers as having too easy a life for too long. The fact is, they were working before the cuts, and now they are not. What do you think would be the bigger problem as you see it?

Our personal spending, multiplied out over time and people, affects the economy. The local Starbucks wouldn’t likely go out of business if we cut back our spending there, but if EVERYONE did, it might be a different story. The point is that spending cuts are most palatable if done gradually, over time. If Starbucks anticipates that people would be cutting back their coffee runs over time, they could plan for it – perhaps by lowering prices and providing better benefits to keep people from doing it. If you are a Starbucks fan, and the prices were lowered, you’d be less likely to cut back because Starbucks is reducing the spending for you.
If you want to spend less, save more and make money at the same time, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau.
As with personal spending, government spending cuts should be incremental and gradual over time to make them more palatable. It’s been said that anyone can cut taxes. Anyone can raise taxes. Cutting spending, in a way that won’t have too many people screaming, is the real challenge. More people get re-elected because of spending, and securing aid for the home district, than by cutting taxes – or spending. Despite the criticism of earmark spending – look at how much of it was in the fiscal cliff deal – politicians rely on it.
The lesson here is to worry about spending in your own household. Saving more and spending less, as consumer adviser Clark Howard preaches on radio, television and in newspapers, is the key to building wealth. We should watch how our tax dollars are spent, certainly. But we should be aware that cutting spending in large amounts quickly is perilous. It’s no surprise that politicians fear taking on that chore.
Peter

CLIFFHANGER, BUT ALL SHOW

Posted on by

It was a real cliffhanger.
But the politicians recently avoided a fiscal cliff that they had created. Yep, they even set up another one to come in a few weeks.
Besides disgust at those who supposedly serve us, there are other ways to feel about all this.
Getting down to brass tacks, or, should we say, brass tax, generally taxes only trend up no matter who we are, and how much we earn.
That said, we should not let taxes alone decide how we conduct our economic life.
We heard stories on talk radio and other places during the election campaign about people who were willing to expand their businesses, or open new franchises, but declined out of fear and uncertainty over the tax and regulatory atmosphere.
To those who will pass up expansion opportunities for these reasons, remember one thing: if the expansion opportunity is economically viable – in other words, if you would increase sales by expanding – if you don’t do it, someone else will.
Sure, you have to be conscious of costs. If the opportunities are marginal, or very high risk, caution is warranted. But if the need is there, and the market is there for what you do, you can figure out how to expand and still turn a good profit despite the tax and regulatory milieu. Or, someone else will.
IT’S WHO YOU ARE, NOT THE GOVERNMENT MILIEU
Such decisions have more to do with the type of person you are, than the so-called government interference. If you are the type who start businesses and employ people and try to get as much out of them for as little as you can get away with paying them, then it would make sense that you would be cautious about expanding. After all, you don’t want to be FORCED to take care of your people.
But if you are the type of person who succeeds by helping others succeed, and who realizes that your success is dependent on others, you would be less concerned with the tax and regulatory milieu and more concerned with whether your business will do better by expanding.
If you are not a business owner, but an employee of one, think about how you are treated at work. Does your boss help YOU succeed? Does he realize that YOU are helping make him rich, and reward you accordingly? Sure, every business is different, and rewards can come in various forms. No one will ever get rich by flipping burgers or making pizzas.
But if you are in those kinds of jobs, does your boss do the little things that help make your time there a little bit better? Does he realize that you are working hard, and do not plan to do this the rest of your life? Would he be proud the day you moved on to better things?
Or, is your boss the type to work you to death, and believe that he’s given you a job and you should be grateful? He knows you won’t do this the rest of your life, but, the day you leave, he curses you out for leaving him short of help.
The lesson here is that business people and entrepreneurs get more from their staffs by recognizing that they can’t do it alone. They appreciate everything their employees do for them. They treat them like family. Most of all, they work to make THEM successful, either in the line of work in which they are employed, or other, more advanced lines of work. They heed the words of the late Zig Ziglar, who said that if you help others get what they want, you’ll get what you want.
If you are an entrepreneur looking for a good business opportunity, or an employee looking to break away from what you are doing, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. You may care about what goes on in Washington, D.C., because you want to be a good citizen. But you won’t worry about the tax or regulatory situation because it won’t matter to you. Imagine having a goal to have a six-figure TAX BILL! And, you’ll succeed only by helping others succeed with you.
You may watch manufactured cliffhangers on TV, but you will always be on solid, even wealthy, ground with all the friends you helped.
Peter

CAPITAL, LABOR AND ECONOMIC FUTURE

Posted on by

Are we, or have we been, moving into a trend in which capital surpasses labor as the economic engine?
New York Times columnist and Pulitzer Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman thinks so.
From the working person’s viewpoint, the economy is still quite depressed. But economic figures are improving and corporations are making record profits. Many of these companies are holding on to their cash for dear life, fearing the investment and regulatory climate now and to come.
Krugman points out that manufacturing is moving back to the U.S. from overseas. He uses the example of manufacturing computer mother boards. They are made largely by robots, so the cheap, Asian labor is no longer needed. Perhaps that’s why we hear that China’s economy is contracting.
But let’s look at the way things are, from where you sit. Chances are, if you are still working, you have at least some fear that your job is going to go away before you want it to. Perhaps you are saving your pennies, and not spending frivolously, in anticipation of being shown the door at work. The U.S. savings rate needed a shot in the arm, for sure, but how it is getting it is quite disconcerting.
Perhaps you are out of work, and have been for a while. You scratch your head because the job you had, which you had thought, or even had been told, was vital to your company just went away. It’s not as if you had done a lousy job at it and were replaced. Your job just went away, and it’s not coming back.
Meanwhile, you hear about record profits for companies and wonder why they are not putting some of that money back into their operations, i.e. in creating new jobs. Well, they probably don’t have to. Technology has improved to the point at which machines replace people in big numbers. No matter how much money they have, companies will not create jobs they don’t think they need. Some will actually cut jobs they should maintain.
This phenomenon is detrimental to what we know as the middle class. Because those with the capital have political benefactors, they may be creating a political system that lets them get richer at others’ expense. When the successful are protected in this way, the less successful become more vulnerable. As Krugman says, we’re not talking about a gap between the educated work force and the less educated. In this milieu, EVERYONE gets paid less. When the less successful become more vulnerable, they not only get paid less for what they do. They pay more for what they need.
INHERITANCE TAXES CAN HURT
Krugman says that the rich also are fighting to eliminate inheritance taxes. He may find some disagreement here, because inheritance taxes can prevent family businesses from being given to future generations of that family. Sometimes, families have to sell their businesses to cover the tax bill, and there is something wrong with that. On the other hand, there could be large amounts of wealth being easily transferred to people who are already wealthy, without adding to the economic engine.
If this trend of forced idleness continues, it bodes ill. Look at what is happening in other countries, where young, often educated people can’t find work. Such free time among a disgruntled group can lead to all sorts of bad things.
However, in all this, there is good news. There are lots of ways out there to make money, without worrying about having a traditional job. To check out one of the best, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. Hear and see the stories of how average people are making above-average incomes, and helping others do the same. It also attacks the notion of paying more for what one needs.
So if you are working, think about your plan B. Savings will certainly help you, but they may not cover all your bills without a paycheck. If you are not working, don’t be discouraged. Check out one of the many opportunities there are, through which average people, regardless of education, are prospering. Sometimes, becoming successful just requires being open to looking at something different.
It has been said that the best way to help the poor is to not be one of them. The best way to fight the capital vs. labor battle that Krugman illustrates is to find ways to generate more real capital. Kurgman calls the capital guys robber barons. If you help people prosper with you, that’s makes you a benefactor.
Peter