George Soros supports "Proposition 19"

In today's edition of the Wall Street Journal, famed hedge fund manager and billionaire George Soros wrote an op-ed piece titled, "Why I Support Legal Marijuana."  He starts off by writing that, "Our marijuana laws are clearly doing more harm than good," and follows throughout the article with the many reasons why he believes the de-criminilization of it, as currently proposed on California's ballot (Proposition 19), will prove beneficial to taxpayers.  Soros believes, as I do, that California will once again lead the nation in this hot-topic debate.  He believes, as I do, that if California passes Prop 19 other states will, eventually, learn of the economic benefits that de-criminalizing weed offers and will follow suit.  I say once again because it was California that led the charge for the legalization of "medical marijuana" back in 1996 that ultimately saw 14 states to date enact similar laws, allowing for the legal use of medical marijuana. 

I am not a pot-head.  I just believe, as Soros points out, that so many billions of dollars are spent each year tying up the courts and jails on what I feel are wasteful efforts.  Not to mention the dollars and hours spent by law enforcement each year.  Their efforts, and funding, could be utilized for more pressing issues in my opinion.  I know this argument has been made many times before, but now that a real proposal is on the table for recreational and personal use (not for distribution) I want to publicly support it, as George Soros does.  Incidentally Mr. Soros had been a long-time idol of mine for his business acumen, self-made wealth, and his extensive philanthropic endeavors...the guy gives tens of millions of dollars to charities every year.  His position on Proposition 19, and his public decleration of it, only strengthens my respect for him.

Competition or cooperation

This is not my abstract.  Since last Wednesday, I have been researching for my paper, and have come across some studies I feel are worth writing about.  Essentially for my paper I will be asking the question,: "Does (internal) competition lead to greater motivation and increased productivity?"  Given the current economic landscape in the United States, and the prospect of organizations' emerging desire to do more with less, this is a question that desrves some consideration.  Like it or not, in my opinion, we are all competitive...even if our motivations-the drivers of competition-are completely different.  Some are driven by financial rewards, others are driven by status, or praise, or even acknowledgement from their bosses and/or co-workers.  Does a competitive climate within an organization (division/department/team, etc.) produce better results for the individual members of that organization?  Originally, I was going to focus my reserach in the Sales Industry.  However, after conducting my due diligence, I realized that across all industries competition can effect, adversely or not, members of its workforce.  In light of that, I will use examples from several different industries to explore my thesis.  The counter-argument of competition is cooperation-An environment whereby two or more people work together for a common goal, or mutual benefit.  The operative phrase being mutual benefit.  If you do well, I do well...and vice versa.  But does this approach raise legitimate concerns for the organization and its members?  The idea of "front-running" immediately comes to mind where one or more members gain equal credit for a project/assignment without contributing equal effort.

I do believe that cooperation is the ideal. But for a collaborative, team-oriented environment to manifest, all members must be trustworthy.  We all know that is difficult to achieve.  So again I ask, what paradigm maximizes equitable treatment of the members of an organization?  Is a competitive climate more conducive to success, or one of cooperation?  Or does it depend on the industry where one methodology has a clear advantage over the other?  Perhaps a hybrid methodology?  I am curious as to your thoughts; concerning myself, continued research will serve to strengthen my position.  For what it's worth, I do believe in the cooperative approach, but I also think that a competitive climate pushes individuals to their max potential, resulting in higher motivation and greater production. 

Note:   I tried like hell to put a link here Dr. Weyant.  Nothing was worthy of adding to the scope of my comments this week.  Only articles on EBSCO, which you can't hyperlink.  

Doing more with less?

What is the deal with the current U.S. job market?  According to the most recent jobs report, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment remains unchnaged from the prior month at 9.6%.  That report however paints a much rosier picture than a recent Gallup poll, that puts the underemployment rate at about 18.4%.  Underemployment is a more accurate assessment of the overall job market in my opinion, as it shows MBAs making, say, entry-level compensation.  Or seasoned supervisors and managers making much less than they deserve, and certainly much less than they once did.  Part of the problem based on different articles I've read, is that companies have learned to be more productive with less employees.  The recession that began in October 2007 (some say it began in mid-2008....fine, whatever the date is), forced companies to become more efficient.  And now that an economic recovery begins to slowly rear its head, companies are still ever-mindful of costs, and as such, they are reluctant to hire.  What they would rather do, according to this article from AP, is consolidate job-duties among workers that are already on the books.  The article points out for example, the manufacturing supervisor who must also learn to operate (and service) the automated machines he or she is operating!  A computer tech used to do that.  No longer.  This has established a paradigm in corporate America that is demanding their managers to "do more with less."  The broader responsibilities (of workers/managers) means its harder to fill many of the jobs that are open these days.
I guess we'll see how this thinking by corporate America will eventually play out.  Yes, on a short-term basis, consolidation of job duties yields cost-savings and therefore increased earnings.  But how will this affect the workforce over a long period of time?  Time will tell.

Outsourcing is a good thing

The United States has generated the wealthiest and most powerful economy in the world.  Most for-profit, and even increasingly non-profit firms, are focused on being bigger and having their "numbers" grow faster than anyone else.  You can notice the excitement, the publicity, the swell of pride every time the company's stock, or the S&P 500 hits a new high.  The corporate leaders driving this economy want to stay on top, and you can't blame them for that.  These guys are certainly not stupid. Their stock highs, and subsequent bonuses do create jobs for Americans, and ultimately lower costs for consumers. 
Yet I hear people all the time who have issues with these same American companies outsourcing menial jobs.  "Outsourcing is taking away jobs!"  "Why don't they hire Americans to do that work..don't they see our unemployment numbers?"  These are some of the comments that seem to summarize people's anger.  But do we really want these companies paying an American worker four times as much as it would cost a Chinese, Indian, or Mexican worker to do the same work?  It's not like we are outsourcing creative, highly-skilled jobs.  They are "labor-intensive" jobs that require little brainpower.  And ultimately, since these companies who do outsource these labor-intensive jobs, are saving money, they can continue to expand and grow and look attractive for potential investors.  These investors pump more money into these companies, and, because these companies keep their costs so low, their cost of capital (for expansion, and additional Research and Development) remains low enough where they decide to borrow; this leads to more jobs-for Americans.  Good paying jobs creating and manufacturing products that will in turn push their stock prices higher...and the cycle continues.  So please, can we see the big picture when it comes to outsourcing?