Changing Tides

There was a story I remember from a long time ago, though I don't remember the details so forgive the poor story telling.

It was told from the perspective of a young boy, who admired one of his classmates and tried to imitate him as much as possible.

Then he realized that the boy he admired was doing the same - admired a different classmate, and using him as a role model. 

And that third classmate was imitating a fourth boy, who was that annoying little git who looked up to and tried to copy the original story teller.

I was thinking about that, because the frustrating thing about this book on enlightened capitalists (and the way nobody really follows their example) is that there's no easy culprit for this substandard system. Take the modern economy -

I am definitely not an expert, but iirc quite a bit of the stock market is actually owned by mutual funds, 401Ks, and the like.

Not to say that we don't have a very real problem with the 0.01% owning an extremely disproportionate share. But if one of them was an enlightened capitalist, they might not have near us much of a capability for changing that system as we think. (Though perhaps Jeff Bezos is an exception. I think I'd need real numbers to say for sure, not my guesswork here.)

Anyways, the average 401K holder isn't knowledgeably managing their stock, that's what the fund managers are for.

And the average fund manager is probably well aware that this isn't their money, and are (hopefully) doing what they think is best for their clients.

And 'best' is often like those young boys did. Look around and see what everyone else is doing. (after all, if you get it wrong so will everybody else, so it's not like you were somehow more foolish or incompetent).

I have to wrap this up real quick (work), so one small addition.

Changing that is complicated. Like something (I forget the details. Maybe it was discussing the housing crisis?) from a while back.

Everyone was assessing the markets or funds or business the same.

Then one changed their rating. And they faced some heat for doing so, but it also led others to quietly re-evaluate.

Little by little, more of them started charging how they rated the asset. In part because of new information, perhaps. Or they stopped suppressing any negative analysis. And SS more and more shifted, I'm sure some just followed the crowd.

I'm not sure it's right (analysis, especially of companies and stocks, should be taken with a grain of salt for exactly this type of reason. There's a lot of people imitating everyone else.) but I do think this is probably what change looks like.

It starts with one. And they probably receive opprobrium. Perhaps even vicious and heated attacks.

But others, who may have seen the same and chosen not to rock the boat, start speaking up.

And the tide begins to turn. 

Supply Chain

And a nice little article discussing the Evergreen impact of the Ever Given blockage on the supply chain.

This right here is why I keep an eye out for shipping stories. 

Not in an expert kind of way, and I don't necessarily go digging for it... But ships can haul a lot of stuff. 

When we deployed to Iraq most of our equipment went by ship. 

Sure, people and some supplies can fly..  But can you imagine how many planes (and how much fuel, and how much time) it would take to fly all of a division's vehicles?  Humvees, tanks, HEMMTs? The 5 ton cargo trucks? 

Yeah, no. 

Shipping is essential, which is why the navy is still pretty essential. (and the marines, for helping secure ports and beachheads and I'll shut up now because any more will reveal how little I really know. Let's just say they're important, I get that, and they require real expertise in a completely different way from the army. And if I ever poke fun at them, it's just typical friendly service rivalry.) 

Come to think of it, there's some interesting theories about maritime power and global power that I've brushed against and probably added to my ever expanding reading list..  It's just a lower priority for me because I'm not going to be a naval expert. 

Building Talented Teams

An interesting thread and discussion on what it means to hire top talent, and why o ly hiring from the top schools may get in the way of that. 

Jotting Down a Link.

An interesting look at terrorism and piracy. 

Musings

Still reading my book on Enlightened Capitalism, and they had a part at the end of the chapter on Lincoln Electric where they asked some MBA students and senior corporate managers why other managers don't adopt it. I'll probably do a longer post with my take on their suggestions (some seem outright wrong. Not necessarily in what potential imitators think, but that I disagree with anyone who believes it), though that might wait until I actually finish the book. (I've been on call this week and have been reluctant to get sucked into a book. Plus I prefer to read a chapter or two of this one at a time.)

I'll probably also discuss the labor perspective (unions apparently have objections too), but I'm still mulling that over. I'm curious about the other examples. 

Instead I want to explore some of my other thoughts. Because I've mentioned before, it seems like the larger problem is that too many people just don't think it's possible.

I suppose this ties into two more grandiose metas I've considered.

The first is this notion that things might work for one group (ie that certain nations, or workers in a region are somehow harder workers than others. Or better at quality. Sort of like the way we - ie US soldiers who pride themselves on professionalism) look down on the Iraqi or Afghan allies who weren't reliable in gunfights.

This view is complete and utter bullshit. (and it really wasn't all that long ago that our own forces were a bunch of undisciplined yahoos.)

While there are definitely cultural differences, and I don't want to make it sound like I'm glossing that over, people are people. Anywhere you go. And their motivations are not that hard.

I don't mean we all want to be doctors or CEOs or anything like that. The details are extremely individualistic, and one person might work hard for an incentive that another feels 'meh' about. But they generally will put in the work for the incentives they care about.

So part of leadership is identitying those incentives.

I've talked before about internal and external incentives, and I'll also say this - people care a lot more about the internal incentives. They may do the work for external incentives (bonuses, etc) but that's kind of more like bribery. You get people phoning it in for the healthcare, or money, but it's not the same.

Furthermore, people want to feel like they're serving some greater purpose. That's part of what Jim Collins got at with his business books on what makes a business great. The businesses offer a sense of purpose and meaning. (This is probably why do many corporations offer mission statements, though many seem more like a check-the-box thing than a true driving force. Hence quite a bit of the cynicism about them.)

People want to feel heard, that their concerns matter, and that what they do matters. (Caveat - some of this also leads to pressure to become workaholics, which creates a backlash and gets people talking about work-life balance. That's not okay. But the desire to feel like you are doing your thing, and doing it well... To be a master of your field, whatever that field may be, is motivating. And I think James Lincoln is entirely correct in his belief that "the world's greatest untapped resources are the abilities of millions of undereducated men and women trapped in social systems and work organizations in which they had no opportunity to develop, or exercise, their potential." The people busting themselves physically to pick orders, walking on hard warehouse floors in steel toed boots every day, counting out parts, lifting and carrying and packing them... They're all capable of more.

Our great failure is that there's not much opportunity for them to develop that. So most just collect their paycheck and find meaning elsewhere (taking care of their family, or a side hobby. Or church. Whatever it is that makes it worth giving up a large part of their day to work.

Anyways. People are people, and it does take a bit more work on management's part to create an organization that enables them to reach their full potential, but it's not impossible. (It's a bit like the effort it takes to create a system that teaches your subordinate ls how to decide what they can handle themselves and what they should kick upstairs to the boss. You're trying to teach them judgment. And it is work, but the payoff is that a) you don't have to deal with unnecessary things b) people are more motivated. They're empowered to make certain decisions and know that you trust them to do so and c) the things that do need escalated get quickly passed up to the appropriate decision maker. It's like that book on being a one minute manager.. You put the structure in place so that they mostly don't even need you.

Same diff. It's slightly different type of work, but pays off if you do it right. Working more at the initial stages of establishing the command climate and training your people, but less work in the long run since you can trust them to do their jobs. (also similar to the challenges of changing from being a micromanager and /or the type of manager who takes the easy route of giving tasks only to your proven good employees, and thus never developing the rest of your team. Thus leading to burnout, resentment, substandard performance, and probably high turnover as well.) 

Still, even though I firmly believe that the belief that concerns your front line workers can't be trusted is more a reflection of bad management than the workers themselves (there are numerous examples in this book of capitalists turning around very typical working class towns and making them high performers. Same people, just better managed) that's not the real problem. 

Which circles back to belief. 

I'm not sure how to explain the next bit. It's kind of like a theory, but I'm not really sure how you'd collect evidence for it. A belief? Supposition? 

It's also caught up in my personal upbringing, and it probably goes a bit too much into Catholic beliefs for people outside that. I've touched on it before, but here goes. 

If people are people, and my experiences with the 'I got mine, how you do' way of thinking are commonplace... How and why do so many people think differently? 

Why did I spend most of my life around people that don't think that way at all? 

Especially since, as I've said before, most people don't exactly use the free will we've been given. 

And if you read up on history, people have had that attitude everywhere. Perhaps even moreso in the past. The Italian mafia that developed because you couldn't trust strangers to be fair and honest (I'm not going to try looking for the sources on that right now). 

Part of the 'I got mine, how you do' attitude is perhaps not quite as selfish as it sounds at first, because it's more like - I got mine, for me and my people. My family, the people like me. But I don't owe you anything, and if I can rip you off I will. I'll take care of my buddies, my family, my clan. I'll give them the hookup, and I'll expect the same in return. But if you're not part of my circle and you've got nothing to offer? Forget about it. 

This, btw, is a large part of what the New Testament spoke against. Praising the Good Samaritan, who was an outsider. Not one of us. 

So I kind of think that people started changing, not so much because of logic and persuasion and a clear argument about the benefits (to society and ourselves) of treating every human being with dignity and respect, but because somehow Jesus and his disciples convinced a large group of people to have faith. 

To practice loving thy neighbor out of faith. 

And somehow enough people got on board with the idea that we can see some of those tangible benefits. 

Anyways. I don't know that I could make any sort of logical argument as to why shareholders, CEOs, and other corporate leaders are complete and utter short-sighted fools if they don't do a better job of treating ALL their employees with decency and respect. 

Given how many of them are conservative, and while I don't have the numbers I presume they claim to be Christian, you wouldn't think that I had to. 

But if enough of them had faith that it was true, and seriously acted on that faith, we probably would have more businesses like Lincoln Electric. 

The Evergreen Ever Given

So a container ship (the Ever Given, owned by Evergreen iirc) is stuck in the Suez Canal. It's been at least a day and last I heard it's still stuck.

Not really sure what else to say, but since that's one of the major shipping chokepoints (there is now a backlog of ships unable to get through) I am very curious about what the impact is going to be.

I don't really know a lot about the modern shipping industry, but I'll keep an eye out for further news. 

Reading Musings

Funny how I've never heard of Lincoln Electric.

I suppose it's not that unusual, I don't have much of a need for electric arc-welding.

Anyways, this quote - "I knew that if I could get the people of the company to want to succeed as badly as I did, there would be no problem we could not solve together" fits rather nicely with a pithier saying I learned in the army - "If you take care of your people, they'll take care of you."

I don't really see the need for conflict between workers and management. Workers need the company to succeed (or jobs get cut, downsizing occurs, and they'll be out of a job) and managers need workers to do pretty much anything. 

I may go into more detail on that some other time, since I wanted to focus less on that and more on... Well. 

The importance of quality in your workers. The problem with an autocratic, dictatorial, micromanaging style is... 

Okay. There's actually a LOT of problems with it. It squelches initiative. Makes it hard to respond to changes (unless the autocrat sees the need, and if they've surrounded themselves with yes-men and yes-women and created an isolating bubble they might not notice in time). It can be hard for good ideas to reach people with the vision and power to make it happen. 

If I think longer on the topic I'm sure I can come up with even more but again - not really the point. Plus I have a bit of a time crunch and don't want to get sucked into blogging right now. 

The main point is this - motivated and enthusiastic people who trust their managers do a better job. Their quality of work is higher and they do hard to measure things (like bringing up something they've noticed as a problem, even if it's 'outside their pay grade' or 'not their job'). 

If you take care of your people (ie ensure good working conditions, livable wages, and management that treats them as more than just expenses to be reduced to the lowest cost possible) they will make sure your business succeeds. 

Barring a technology change making your business obsolete ofc, though even then a good team might come up with an alternative field to get into. 

Really, it annoys me no end that the people with power and influence are so frigging short sighted. 

Update and Various Musings

I finally got back to reading The Enlightened Capitalists. So far I read about Robert Owens (who helped found Indiana's failed commune New Harmony. Not really relevant, but as a Hoosier of sorts it was interesting to see the connection) and JC Penney.

Its interesting how the challenges they face mirror some of the comments I've seen on Twitter from Dan Price, who drew attention when he insisted on paying his employees a minimum of 70K a year (and, btw, apparently home ownership and parenthood are up among his employees. Which seems like a 'Well duh' comment, but there was a recent news tizzy about declining birth rates so apparently the rather obvious impact of low, wages and other social ills isn't as obvious to the ones worried about that. I can't speak for others, but I actually kinda want a child. Getting old enough I'm not sure it'll happen, but I can honestly say financial stability or lack thereof is one of the reasons I haven't yet.)

Anyways. It also reminds me of the pushback Costco got for paying their workers better. 

Its like, it doesn't matter how many enlightened capitalists prove that there's another way. 

And it's not just the shareholder class. Even the average workers who really benefited from their policies were suspicious. 

Still, it's worth noting that a lot of the practices Robert Owens used did eventually become normal. It's just that it came from various battles between the classes over the years. 

Truthfully, widespread disbelief that treating your employees well is profitable is harder to deal with than simple greed. 

The Challenges for the US Today

This article discussing the challenges in creating a high speed rail system is worth checking out because most of these challenges are there for more than just this particular problem.

High speed rail may be unusually difficult because of the long term planning and strong commitment required - but the obstacles listed here are true for just about any large scale proposal.

I'm not willing to say a permanent change has happened - though I'm not sure if that's because admitting as much seems tantamount to saying we're doomed to decline, or if it's a realistic assessment of the possibilities.

We do like inspiring grand projects after all, and I hope that projects like the moon shot and Manhattan project are not something we've lost the capability to do. (though how much of that was driven by fear?)

I do like the idea of high speed rail, not just for the idea that you could get from New York to Chicago in four hours. It would probably not be profitable to private businesses, but making it easy to go from Houston to El Paso, to Tucson, Vegas, and San Diego (perhaps not all on one line) would be a huge economic boon to such spread out cities.

Still, getting the contiguous stretches of land required (without screwing over Native Americans as we've repeatedly done) would be a definite challenge, and that's not even getting into the funding and actual construction.

Anyways, there's other moonshot-like projects that have seemed not worth mentioning given the current political situation.

Like pushing for solar panels on rooftops (rooftops seem like such a wasted potential. I hear it's not really worth it unless the rooftops are a certain size... But schools? Warehouses? Federal buildings? And upgrading utility companies from just generating power to focusing on transporting and storing energy from a variety of sources. Shame that I hear those are some of the most conservative businesses, and the most expensive to get into. And full of shady a-holes probably not too different from the Enron folks, because there's real potential there. Hopefully the scattered impressions I have are wrong.) 

And maybe we hyperspeed rail is a stretch, but surely we can do some sort of comprehensive upgrades to our infrastructure. Hell, bring back zeppelins. Part of the appeal of high speed trains is that we're willing to give up a little bit of the time save flying if it means traveling in comfort, and with less stress. 

Further moon shot goals would be expanding high speed internet access (like we did to push telephone service out to rural areas). Now that we've all learned how to work remotely during the pandemic, it's a great chance to revitalize rural communities. Have internet, and you can work from North Judson just as easily as Chicago. 

It's such a shame that too many people have decided lower taxes are more important than investing in ourselves. 

Like, maybe we're in decline and maybe we aren't. I don't think it's inevitable yet, if we can get our shit together. 

But the challenges laid out in the article are the exact same things keeping us from doing that. 

Side Observation

From the reactions on Twitter, quite a few people relate to this article discussing how the prolonged stress of the pandemic is effecting people's brains. 

I'm posting here because...

It doesn't resonate.  Or rather, this part? -

"we can neither remember what life was like before nor imagine what it’ll be like after."

And this?

"like you’re waking up to more of the same, and it’s never going to change,”

I've felt that. Mostly in Iraq. Or Afghanistan. 

That's why we'd joke about 'Groundhog's Day', where every day was the same. 

The routine. The chow hall. The weather.  The lack of things to do.

No places to go, unless you're on a base big enough you can visit one of the other dining facilities. (Or, at Camp Leatherneck, we'd pop over to the British side of things.)

It's not that I don't feel some of what's described here. But... spending a year at home is a heckuva lot better. 

I can cook my own food, or order takeout from a local restaurant for variety. I have my pets for company. 

Ummm.

I mean, the internet and books are about the same? Except I have Netflix, which is better.  (I'm pretty sure it wasn't a streaming service when I was in Iraq. I don't remember if it was a thing when I was in Afghanistan. Though if it was, I probably couldn't stream it anyway.  My little living space did have wi-fi in Iraq. I honestly can't remember for Afghanistan now.)

I have an actual, full size bed. A bathroom right down the hall and not a short walk away in another trailer (and NOT a bag you put on a wooden frame).

I'm not sure what that comparison really says, or means. Perhaps the mental fatigue described here is something most soldiers dealt with when deployed. Whether there's long term consequences (probably, for some) or whether it makes people more resilient (maybe? I clearly find it easier to deal with the stresses of working from home better than some) is probably something that'd require research I don't have to get any real answers. 

This is strictly about the stresses of working from home and social distancing, by the way.  Grief, job loss, and all the insecurity and uncertainty about the past year means our individual experiences can be far worse.

Matthew 25:40-45

I was thinking further about these verses, and wanted to make this point a little harder:

In the United States Jesus froze to death in Texas.

Or Jesus died because he couldn't afford insulin.

Jesus died of covid in a nursing home.

Jesus was beaten, shoved to the ground, and/or stabbed.

Jesus was charged thousands of dollars for electricity.

Jesus died when a police officer knelt on his neck.

Jesus was slammed against a wall.

Jesus was charged thousands of dollars for medical care after catching covid.

I could go on and on... 

This is the world the powers-that-be has created. 

And where are all the people who say they love Jesus?

They're not very visibly fighting for him, that's for sure. 

Yep

Getting rather frustrated with how true this is.

Why does power corrupt so consistently, anyway? 

Evidence Based Policies

An interesting study on the effects of giving cash benefits to people in need.

I keep talking about how these are all just tools in the tool bag, and it's important to know when to use which tool. So the speculation about how isolation can cause problems are worth noting.

Also, there probably is a point where inflation would outpace the multiplier effect.

I suspect we're nowhere near that level right now, though. 

Beating a Dead Horse

I kind of wanted something short and pithy to share on FB, and have been keeping an eye out for something I could use to make the point. I thought I saw something appropriate today, but decided against it after looking further.

The gist of it, as has been all too common lately, is the difference between what the Bible says and what people who claim to believe in it say. 

For example, this is a rather famous bit from Matthew 5:43-44 -

 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,"

I'd love to put that right next to one of the quotes, or a poll or something where people who claim to follow Jesus are calling Democrats evil. Or liberals. Or pretty much any group that disagrees with them. (There are people on the left who do the same, and that's just as bad. At least most of them don't claim to love Jesus. Also, last poll I saw on this showed it was a few percentage points less. Was kinda interested in seeing something more recent on the topic, and not from a news station. Something from Pew or Gallup.

Anyways, good Christian Republicans should be praying for Democrats, and Biden, and all their 'enemies'.

Jesus said so. 

I think I've also mentioned Matthew 25:31-45.

If whatever you do to the least of you, you do to Jesus.. 

Then what's that say about anti-homeless architecture?

Same question for the people deliberately spreading misinformation on covid, or doing everything on their power to prevent help for the least among us. 

I've seen people comment that there are far too many people claiming they're Christian and acting this way to honestly argue that it's not Christian behavior... 

But seriously. Being Christian isn't supposed to be like being a Cubs fan. It's not just a matter of wearing a cross and sharing memes about how much you love Jesus.

And 'winning' isn't a matter of putting in charge the people who thump a Bible the loudest, or tweet the most Bible verses. 

If you aren't trying to love your neighbor (even your gay neighbor, or transsexual neighbor), if you aren't working towards a society that cares for the least among us, then I don't really care how loudly and publicly you claim to be Christian.