So if you have known all of that you still invite them to the Euro, you still lend them like there is no tomorrow, and then you put all the blame on them?
What kind of investor are you? A german banker? Ja wohl! Ich know all of thiz but I still lend them because if antyhing happens I call up Die Frau and she get our back.
Only at 115 - 120 IQ points one starts to be interested in "looking for information on their own". Not to mention things like building stuff on their own. 115-120 IQ is top 10% population. Maybe 20%. You are definitely over estimating general population. It is easy to do so of meeting only the smartest 20% when at university, work, family. I dare you ask McDonald's cashier next time what they want to do in life, or a salesperson in car dealership or retail store. I guarantee you it won't be "save some money to start my own business or build stuff". It will be "win a lottery and retire on tropical island". Don't trust me on my words, go outside your bubble and and run this experiment and let us know the result. Also, don't direct them into an answer, so it is honest.
It is not that they need to be punished on purpose, but yes, you need to have a system in place that incentives work and success, otherwise, yes, 80% of the population all they want is "free stuff". Obviously taken from top 20% because, you know, to them it is not like you had some sincere interest in something, or wanted to build something. To them you just got lucky, because to them the whole of humanity just wants to "win a lottery" and retire. As you can't understand and see that there are people in the world who just want to sit, watch TV, and enjoy themselves, the same way they can't see that there are people in the world who sincerely want to build stuff or obtain knowledge, not for money really, but because it is important to us.
Go outside your bubble, go visit a few places, and ask people about their long term plans or what they want to do. It won't be about contribution. It will be about consumption.
at one big company with three capital letters they have this policy too. Guess what, they gave me $30k bonus in two payments instead.
Countering the article premise really, you don't ask for a raise. You are (should be) so important to their project(s) that they are the ones asking from time to time if you like everything on the project, need a vacation, raise, bonus. One time, at 1:00am still at the office, I got a call from my wife. She wasn't happy to say the least. Guess what, we had a nice dinner booked in really expensive restaurant pretty soon.
And all of that administering esoteric set of admin tools ranging from source control, through qa, to pmo. If you are one of the very few guys in town who know the tools: what options do they have?
"Underpaying" on purpose or not isn't an option at this point. At this point the Manager makes sure you are compensated well.
Just trying to fix the mindset. The mindset shouldn't be about negotiations. The mindset should be: what can i do so they really, really need me.
And in this story, the Manager expected to underpay for a prelonged periods of time and how to make it work out exactly?
Let me try to understand it better. So, you are hiring someone in super-competitive niche. An engineer who can probably land another job in a matter of weeks, if not days even. And what you are doing here is underpaying her?
You can have someone working for free (internships) or for $8/hour, but everything in between is illegal. So first of all this is stupid.
Two, nobody stays forever at $8/hr job with exception of very few. If you are unskilled worker looking for your first job ever, why would anyone hire you, if they can get experienced unskilled worker for the same minimal wage? I.e. I can get you fresh from high school flipping burgers for $8/hr or I can get someone with 5 years experience flipping burgers for the same $8/hr. Guess what, I will get someone with 5 years of experience instead of you with zero years experience for exactly the same price. I could hire you for $3/hr with zero experience, so you could get some on the job and finally land $8/hr job after some time. Or learn on the job how to run a cash register, work with others and treat customers, but instead - thanks to the minimal wage - you will spend that time trying to compete for jobs having zero experience with people who for the same price have plenty of it. Thank minimal wage for high unemployment rates among young (no experience). Before minimal wage was enacted unemployment rate among young was the lowest from all age groups. Now it is the highest. Minimal wage killed the concept of the "first job". For your first job you must be worth the minimal wage. If you aren't, there are no jobs for you.
I wish rap music producers would have data like that too. So I could sue them for under representing whites in the rap music industry. Not to mention white women.
BS like this, U.S. only, couldn't agree more.
If God wants to punish someone, He makes them crazy first. They will do the rest on their own. -- Roman/Latin proverb
Each person, whatever their sex is, should have the right to work at a place if they are as qualified as other candidates.
If there's a lady who wants to land a job at Child Care Center, and - let's say a Black transgender gay communist - they should have exactly the same chances. But these horrible sexist mothers will allow only other women, preferable white, to take care of their kids! Males stand almost no chances, not to mention race minorities, not to mention sex minorities.
This is a true middle-ages dramatic situation of these gays. And again - I'm talking on the individual level. Even if only one gay out of the population of 20% gay in the US currently wants to have a job at a Child Care Center he should have exactly same chances as a single white straigt woman.
Wouldn't you agree? I hope you are not a xenophobic racist homophob because that what you are if you give preference to some white woman working at a Child Care to Black Transgender Gay (fe)male.
not to mention how hard it is for gays to land a job in early years education. So backwards! The worst are these mothers. Once they see a male working in a Child Care Center there is going to be lawsuit, that's for sure. Gay male employee at Child Care Center? I hope there will be some progress too!
The difference is we all need to pay for public sector mistakes. We are all forced to pay for them. Poor, rich, doesn't matter. And the amount of money in public sector is much higher almost by definition.
In private sector, let's face it. Someone owns that business. The owner looses money if they are ineffective. Not all of us. Not all taxpayers. That's part of the reason why private business are better at not loosing too much money. Because this is Owner's money. He/she will make sure not too loose too much. Not to waste it. If he/she doesnt, more cost effective competition will take their place.
>> If interest rates are at 7% (savings account returns you 7% annually) who will invest in risky start-ups?
> Well, they're not.
Well, in 2000-2006 house prices weren't going down. Wait a sec! In 1800-2006 house prices in the US weren't going down. Sure thing, do nothing but invest in housing in the US in 2006! I love that type of logic.
Interest rates can change very soon. The interest rates will go up. Sooner than many think.
>Interest rates are so extremely low right now that they don't even keep up with inflation.
If you use the same formula to calculate inflation that was used in Reagan times we have had inflation in 5-10% year-to-year basis for the past few years now.
> In several banks and several countries, the interest rate is actually less than zero. Or, in other words, banks charge you to store your money for you.
Real interest rates are in negative territory: i.e. you can borrow at lower rate than the rate of inflation. That's the only logical reason behind investors buying into treasuries or swiss debt with negative return: because investors understand that we currently have real interest rates that are negative vs. cnbc and government propaganda of low inflation. The only reason they invest in these is because they know we live in high inflation times. In times of high inflation (like nowadays) it is extremely hard to find investment that beats inflation, so investors tend to invest in "anything", they just don't want cash. Cash is toxic. Investors are afraid of cash. They want anything but cash. Even taxi start-up with valuation higher than all taxi companies in the world - Uber - is better than Cash. Everything is better than cash in high inflation times. People invest in Uber because cash is worthless. Not because Uber is a good value stock. Are you trying to tell me people invest in $32B "worth" "business" like Uber because there is no inflation? Good joke.
> Given that, is investing in technology really that bad of an idea? You have to put your money somewhere.
"You have to put your money somewhere." you said it brother. Why I have to? If inflation is low as you claim? Why? Because even Uber is less risky than inflated USD. That's why. You have to put your money somewhere -- catch phrase heard often in high inflation times. Really. Not deflation times or even close to deflation. In deflation times you "dont have to put your money somewhere". Because your money gives you nice return without actually doing anything with it. If I can get the same amount of food, gas, housing, healthcare and vacation for the same amount as I did in 2010, why the hell I need to invest in risky taxi drivers start-up with $32B valuation? You don't make any sense brother! Apply some common sense here!
>VCs are mostly funded by large stashes of money - some of it among the oldest and most secure money in the world - called limited partners (LPs).
I'm tired of hearing about "the most secure money in the world". Heard enough of it when working for Capital Group back in 2007/08. They finally shut up when their "assets" (very secure, very) went from $2T to $500B.
> Think endowment funds, that type of thing. Those funds will diversify their investments across multiple aspects of the economy. For simplicity sake, we'll say 50% real estate, 40% stock/bonds, and 10% into VC funds. VCs take a small chunk, and invest the rest in tech companies.
Why? If inflation is so low? What for? Just keep it in the bank. With low inflation there is 0% logic in doing what you propose - investing in real estate, stock, bonds. Not to mention things that are start-ups with $32B valuation in taxi "niche". You'll see - we'll lough from this soon enough. You invest in Uber, because you recognize there is no return on cash (high inflation).
> In that way, some of the most inssttitutionalized money in the world will, yes, be invested in Uber. Really.
Till the day even idiots at Fed who believe in their own cooked inflation numbers open their eyes and see they need to stop the madness. Raises the interest rates. Then the bubble pops. Like it did every time before. Really.
Inflation is at 5-10% if we measure it the same way we have always measured it till Reagan times. Then the Government started cooking books, but if we agree to use the same formula to calculate inflation as the one we used before 1990s, we are at 10% right now my friend. We have been for a few years. So in real terms we have had negative interest rates. By definition this makes investors to put money in anything but cash. When you think about it, this is why investors are so keen to keep money in things like Swiss Government debt that has negative return. Why would you ever do that if real interest rates werent in fact negative?
If interest rates are at 7% (savings account returns you 7% annualy) who will invest in risky start-ups?
If you can just go to a bank branch deposit cash and get back 7% -- are you going to go and invest in Uber instead? Really? Because it has "great valuation" ?
Somehow never was true with Iceland. They never repaid and they are just fine. Actually better than fine. I still remember all this fear-mongering coming from mainstream (i.e. the Economist) that the world will come to an end for Iceland if they don't repay. Nothing happened. They are in much better position than Greece. But they said no to EU demands. They said no to IMF demands. They showed big finger to bankers. And that's the lesson for Greece. They should quit Euro (Merkel will never allow because others would follow suit) and debase currency. Do exactly as Iceland did.
Couldn't agree more. Government Bonds (like US Treasuries) can go to zero. Really. Like any other investment. German and French Governments demanding from Greece paying off debt like the bonds are still in 2007 is insane. If bankers took risks bought an asset class without doing their homework and then the asset class goes to zero, our response is to pretend it is not zero and pay off bankers? I'm sorry but I thought capitalism is all about risk and reward. They took their risks, they made mistake, the Market should put them back into their place, so others can learn on it. But none of this counts when you can call up die Frau (Merkel) and extort money.
What kind of investor are you? A german banker? Ja wohl! Ich know all of thiz but I still lend them because if antyhing happens I call up Die Frau and she get our back.
Nice, really nice.