Looks like the Brits are in as much trouble as the Americans:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/3492912/Bonanza-for-jobs-but-only-in-public-sector.html
Mark Wallace, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "It is unsustainable to have fewer and fewer private sector workers paying for more and more public sector workers. "The state wage bill, not to mention the future pension cost, is putting a crippling burden on the economy."
Didn't the Americans sail away and fight a war to be free from an overbearing government that was taxing them too much?
Oh, the irony.
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Friday, November 28, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Happy Thanksgiving
What am I thankful for? Well, other than family and my health, two of my friends just got married on November 25, 2008--I wish them the best.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Foot Locker Affirms its Financial Strength
Things have gotten so bad, Foot Locker is sending emails to individual customers assuring them it is still a viable business:
As you are a valued member of the Foot Locker family, I would like to take a few moments to address the misleading information regarding our Company that has been circulating the Web and covered by the general media. Much of this information is being used to encourage consumers to avoid purchasing gift cards this holiday season.
We can assure you that our financial position remains strong and we continue to be a leader within the athletic retail industry. From time to time, we do close underperforming stores, in the course of normal business, in order to concentrate our efforts on those stronger-performing stores that ultimately allow us to better serve our customers.
During this holiday season and beyond, we will continue to offer an extensive selection of the most sought-after products at our more than 2,000 U.S. stores and on-line at footlocker.com, ladyfootlocker.com and kidsfootlocker.com. And, of course, our gift cards will continue to be another great gift idea and are redeemable at all of our stores and on-line.
Thank you for your support.
Best regards,
Stacy Cunningham
Corporate Vice President
Foot Locker, Inc.
Oh, the paranoia.
As you are a valued member of the Foot Locker family, I would like to take a few moments to address the misleading information regarding our Company that has been circulating the Web and covered by the general media. Much of this information is being used to encourage consumers to avoid purchasing gift cards this holiday season.
We can assure you that our financial position remains strong and we continue to be a leader within the athletic retail industry. From time to time, we do close underperforming stores, in the course of normal business, in order to concentrate our efforts on those stronger-performing stores that ultimately allow us to better serve our customers.
During this holiday season and beyond, we will continue to offer an extensive selection of the most sought-after products at our more than 2,000 U.S. stores and on-line at footlocker.com, ladyfootlocker.com and kidsfootlocker.com. And, of course, our gift cards will continue to be another great gift idea and are redeemable at all of our stores and on-line.
Thank you for your support.
Best regards,
Stacy Cunningham
Corporate Vice President
Foot Locker, Inc.
Oh, the paranoia.
Small Business Stats
These are some facts I received from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, which is sort of a BLS for small businesses, gathering lots of useful statistics:
http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf [PDF file]
1. "Since the mid-1990s, small businesses have created 60 to 80% of the net new jobs."
For more, go to http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/data.html#us
2. "Small businesses employ about half of U.S. workers."
3. "Two-thirds of new employer establishments survive at least two years, 44 percent survive at least four years, and 31 percent survive at least seven years, according to a recent study."
Well, so far, I'm in the top 44% so far.
4. "Very small firms with fewer than 20 employees annually spend 45 percent more per employee than larger firms to comply with federal regulations."
I have advocated that small businesses with fewer than five employees and a gross income of less than $550,000 annually should have no regulations other than those guaranteeing payment of wages to workers. (I still haven't figured out what the best number is for the gross annual income cutoff and chose 550K because if a company hired five employees and paid them 50K each and had gross receipts of 550K, it would probably net around $200K-$250K, which is not unreasonable.) Criminal laws are sufficient to keep small businesses in check. Beyond that, onerous civil regulations are a form of corporate welfare to larger corporations, who have the capital to hire in-house counsel to advise them, to keep up with ever-changing laws, and to have a litigation defense budget. Small businesses, on the other hand, sometimes don't even know a law until they get sued, because they've been too busy trying to survive in the real world instead of reading regulations and cases.
5. "Commercial banks and other depository institutions are the largest lenders of debt capital to small businesses. They accounted for almost 65 percent of total traditional credit to small businesses in 2003. (This includes credit lines and loans for nonresidential mortgages, vehicles, equipment, and leases.) Credit cards account for much of the growth in small business lending over the past few years."
This might be one factor in the credit crunch--the more small businesses fail, the more bad loans on the banks' books.
http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf [PDF file]
1. "Since the mid-1990s, small businesses have created 60 to 80% of the net new jobs."
For more, go to http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/data.html#us
2. "Small businesses employ about half of U.S. workers."
3. "Two-thirds of new employer establishments survive at least two years, 44 percent survive at least four years, and 31 percent survive at least seven years, according to a recent study."
Well, so far, I'm in the top 44% so far.
4. "Very small firms with fewer than 20 employees annually spend 45 percent more per employee than larger firms to comply with federal regulations."
I have advocated that small businesses with fewer than five employees and a gross income of less than $550,000 annually should have no regulations other than those guaranteeing payment of wages to workers. (I still haven't figured out what the best number is for the gross annual income cutoff and chose 550K because if a company hired five employees and paid them 50K each and had gross receipts of 550K, it would probably net around $200K-$250K, which is not unreasonable.) Criminal laws are sufficient to keep small businesses in check. Beyond that, onerous civil regulations are a form of corporate welfare to larger corporations, who have the capital to hire in-house counsel to advise them, to keep up with ever-changing laws, and to have a litigation defense budget. Small businesses, on the other hand, sometimes don't even know a law until they get sued, because they've been too busy trying to survive in the real world instead of reading regulations and cases.
5. "Commercial banks and other depository institutions are the largest lenders of debt capital to small businesses. They accounted for almost 65 percent of total traditional credit to small businesses in 2003. (This includes credit lines and loans for nonresidential mortgages, vehicles, equipment, and leases.) Credit cards account for much of the growth in small business lending over the past few years."
This might be one factor in the credit crunch--the more small businesses fail, the more bad loans on the banks' books.
In Defense of Small Business
The WSJ's letter section has gotten so much better in the last five months, I am eagerly anticipating reading the letters section. Here is one letter in the November 25, 2008 edition that deserves to be read by every American:
"Let's All Work for the Government"
In regard to your editorial "The Public Payroll Always Rises" (Nov. 18): I am appalled that during these extremely poor economic times our government is the only substantial hiring body in the whole economy. I used to work for the government in Michigan when I was in my 20s and remember being bored to death, because I only had about two hours of real work to do per day. Having many friends that are business owners, I see a huge contrast. Business owners work 24/7, pay high taxes [we pay all of our own payroll taxes, an automatic 6.2% increase in taxes], receive no government pensions or benefits... [there is no state unemployment insurance fund for any solo business owners]
I wonder if our upcoming government administration has ever owned a business and/or has any clue about the differences between workers in the public sector vs. the private sector. It is not beneficial for the economy for government to keep excessive employees on board...I would suggest lowering then freezing property taxes nationwide as a way to offer more stability in the housing market [this is a great idea, but the real problem we have now is that current owners cannot afford their monthly payments, especially the ones who have ARMs].
How many public servants are needed, especially now that the economy has contracted so much and will continue to do so? Every day we read that tens of thousands of workers are being let go, but never in the government sector. The government needs to act like a business while using our taxpayer money. Consider how many government employees are really needed, especially since every sector in every economy in the world is laying off during these austere times.
Susan Marie
Tampa Bay, Fla.
To Ms. Marie and the WSJ: thank you for such a well-written letter.
"Let's All Work for the Government"
In regard to your editorial "The Public Payroll Always Rises" (Nov. 18): I am appalled that during these extremely poor economic times our government is the only substantial hiring body in the whole economy. I used to work for the government in Michigan when I was in my 20s and remember being bored to death, because I only had about two hours of real work to do per day. Having many friends that are business owners, I see a huge contrast. Business owners work 24/7, pay high taxes [we pay all of our own payroll taxes, an automatic 6.2% increase in taxes], receive no government pensions or benefits... [there is no state unemployment insurance fund for any solo business owners]
I wonder if our upcoming government administration has ever owned a business and/or has any clue about the differences between workers in the public sector vs. the private sector. It is not beneficial for the economy for government to keep excessive employees on board...I would suggest lowering then freezing property taxes nationwide as a way to offer more stability in the housing market [this is a great idea, but the real problem we have now is that current owners cannot afford their monthly payments, especially the ones who have ARMs].
How many public servants are needed, especially now that the economy has contracted so much and will continue to do so? Every day we read that tens of thousands of workers are being let go, but never in the government sector. The government needs to act like a business while using our taxpayer money. Consider how many government employees are really needed, especially since every sector in every economy in the world is laying off during these austere times.
Susan Marie
Tampa Bay, Fla.
To Ms. Marie and the WSJ: thank you for such a well-written letter.
Walmart Trip
I went to Walmart yesterday just to do some window-shopping and to check out its products. I told myself I wouldn't buy anything, and I was just doing some personal market research. I enjoyed walking around the store. Walmart stores are so huge, it's easy to get lost in them, and at one point, I "found" an entire area I had missed in my first walk-around.
My point in writing this article is to compliment Walmart on its store set-up. Even though I, an avowed cheapskate, had no intention of buying anything, I actually ended up leaving with a bunch of household products, drinks, and NBA cards for around $60. I never spend $60 when I shop, at least not on myself. Walmart's ability to get tightwads like me to spend a relatively large sum is a testament to how well they operate. The only product I didn't see at a substantial discount was aftershave--which had a surprisingly limited selection--but everything else I usually buy was cheaper than I've seen at other stores.
Here is a fairly popular post I did earlier on Walmart:
http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2008/05/walmarts-wmt-annual-report.html
My point in writing this article is to compliment Walmart on its store set-up. Even though I, an avowed cheapskate, had no intention of buying anything, I actually ended up leaving with a bunch of household products, drinks, and NBA cards for around $60. I never spend $60 when I shop, at least not on myself. Walmart's ability to get tightwads like me to spend a relatively large sum is a testament to how well they operate. The only product I didn't see at a substantial discount was aftershave--which had a surprisingly limited selection--but everything else I usually buy was cheaper than I've seen at other stores.
Here is a fairly popular post I did earlier on Walmart:
http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2008/05/walmarts-wmt-annual-report.html
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Self-Represented Litigants
More people are representing themselves in court:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081124/ap_on_re_us/representing_yourself
This is wonderful news. This will force the court system to be more open to the general population and will cause state legislatures to avoid emphasizing procedure over substance. We already see that happening in family court, where the system has been made consumer-friendly. Tellingly, the California State Bar approved "unbundled services" for family law services first.
The law is the only place where the authorities used to demand that clients get full service or nothing at all. That's like forcing someone who just wants a haircut to get a manicure and pedicure at the same place or get no service whatsoever. That kind of system has never made any sense to me.
In addition, self-represented clients can get flat fees for unbundled work, such as responding to motions or making a specific court appearance, which places the consumer in control rather than the attorney. From the financial perspective of the consumer, unbundled services are excellent because they create more competition, which leads to lower prices, and they allow the consumer to control exactly what s/he pays for specific services.
"Full service" was fine when civil lawyers charged more reasonable fees, and when it was easier to get to trial. Now, it sometimes takes more than a year to get a civil court trial, by which time 6 to 50 very expensive motions have been filed. If the State Bar forces attorneys to offer only full service, the business-savvy lawyers--by that I mean the ones that want to stay in business--will demand deposits of $5,000 to $10,000 before taking on any case. High deposits reduce court access to the poor and middle-class.
Unfortunately, the days of the "country lawyer" are long gone. I try to be a country lawyer, but it is becoming more and more difficult because I end up becoming more of a counselor and therapist than an attorney. When clients know their lawyer won't charge them for emails and phone calls or will cut fees, it creates an incentive to contact the lawyer more than necessary, and to use the lawyer as a therapist. This, in turn, can make an attorney who cares about his/her clients more emotionally involved in the case, causing the attorney to absorb the clients' negative emotions (after all, few people contact a lawyer because something good has happened).
In any case, the "full service only" system requires, practically speaking, a large deposit up front and places the control of that money solely and immediately in the hands of the lawyer. An unethical attorney can easily deplete the initial deposit and dump the client if the client chooses not to provide more funds. Thus, a "full service only" system--by creating an incentive for larger initial deposits--rewards lawyers who see their clients as short-term business propositions, because the less you care about your fellow human being, the easier it is to dump them if they fail to pay your bills or run out of money. In contrast, with unbundled services, the client has more leverage to demand a flat fee and the lawyer has an incentive to do good work so the client comes back.
The best definition of morality I've seen was from Immanuel Kant: "Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end." A "full service only" legal system favors attorneys who treat their clients as "means to an end" by reducing the power and choice the consumer/client has in legal transactions. As such, an argument may be made that "full service only" is an intrinsically unethical system.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081124/ap_on_re_us/representing_yourself
This is wonderful news. This will force the court system to be more open to the general population and will cause state legislatures to avoid emphasizing procedure over substance. We already see that happening in family court, where the system has been made consumer-friendly. Tellingly, the California State Bar approved "unbundled services" for family law services first.
The law is the only place where the authorities used to demand that clients get full service or nothing at all. That's like forcing someone who just wants a haircut to get a manicure and pedicure at the same place or get no service whatsoever. That kind of system has never made any sense to me.
In addition, self-represented clients can get flat fees for unbundled work, such as responding to motions or making a specific court appearance, which places the consumer in control rather than the attorney. From the financial perspective of the consumer, unbundled services are excellent because they create more competition, which leads to lower prices, and they allow the consumer to control exactly what s/he pays for specific services.
"Full service" was fine when civil lawyers charged more reasonable fees, and when it was easier to get to trial. Now, it sometimes takes more than a year to get a civil court trial, by which time 6 to 50 very expensive motions have been filed. If the State Bar forces attorneys to offer only full service, the business-savvy lawyers--by that I mean the ones that want to stay in business--will demand deposits of $5,000 to $10,000 before taking on any case. High deposits reduce court access to the poor and middle-class.
Unfortunately, the days of the "country lawyer" are long gone. I try to be a country lawyer, but it is becoming more and more difficult because I end up becoming more of a counselor and therapist than an attorney. When clients know their lawyer won't charge them for emails and phone calls or will cut fees, it creates an incentive to contact the lawyer more than necessary, and to use the lawyer as a therapist. This, in turn, can make an attorney who cares about his/her clients more emotionally involved in the case, causing the attorney to absorb the clients' negative emotions (after all, few people contact a lawyer because something good has happened).
In any case, the "full service only" system requires, practically speaking, a large deposit up front and places the control of that money solely and immediately in the hands of the lawyer. An unethical attorney can easily deplete the initial deposit and dump the client if the client chooses not to provide more funds. Thus, a "full service only" system--by creating an incentive for larger initial deposits--rewards lawyers who see their clients as short-term business propositions, because the less you care about your fellow human being, the easier it is to dump them if they fail to pay your bills or run out of money. In contrast, with unbundled services, the client has more leverage to demand a flat fee and the lawyer has an incentive to do good work so the client comes back.
The best definition of morality I've seen was from Immanuel Kant: "Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end." A "full service only" legal system favors attorneys who treat their clients as "means to an end" by reducing the power and choice the consumer/client has in legal transactions. As such, an argument may be made that "full service only" is an intrinsically unethical system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)