Good Business Decisions

I spent some time this week discussing the subject of  "Good Business Decisions" on the internet.  A more accurate description would be, "How to Justify Running Out on Your Debts".  In reality, well-run businesses don't do this, but that's not the point.

Three years ago, the U. S. created a housing "bubble", through speculation, lack of regulation, and easy credit.  When the  economic downturn occurred, many found that they could no longer afford their mortgage payments, and their lenders foreclosed. The surplus of houses on the market and the changed outlook drove  prices down.  Many others found that the market value of their home had fallen below the amount still owing on their mortgage.  Their home equity had disappeared or gone "negative".

While many were forced out of their homes, others adopted a plan of  "strategic default", by which they walked away from their home and mortgage obligations, because they no longer saw it as a good investment. This practice they suggested was a "Good Business Decision".

Maybe yes and maybe no.  If you default on your mortgage, you may it difficult to get financing in the future.  If you leave at the bottom of the market, you may not be participating in an eventual market recovery.  Housing markets have corrected in the past (notably in the 1980's), and then recovered substantially.

More than a response to market conditions, I wonder about the attitude being expressed.  If it serves my interest, regardless of the impact on others, then it is a "Good Business Decision".  That I entered into an agreement to pay is unimportant, if the agreement is no longer beneficial to me.  After all, I had expected the property to increase in value, not decline.

One woman was particularly incensed that her friend had purchased property in 1996, sold it in 2005, "tripling" his investment, and was later able to pay cash for a new home, while her home had fallen in value, leaving her "underwater".  Considering how unfair all this was, she was contemplating a default.  However,  I imagine her attitude would have been different, if she had followed her friend's course and enriched herself.   

What I heard from others was that the banks had caused the problem (forget that the buyers had sought the financing), were responsible for their loss, and therefore they were morally justified to default.  And wise to be making "A Good Business Decision".  On the other hand, I was branded one of  "you people", "brainwashed by bank propaganda", for saying that I  "give credit" to those who honor their agreements.

The reality is that we live in a market economy, not always well-regulated, where prices are determined by supply and demand, psychology, fear, and greed.  A lot of people participate in creating the fluctuations.  A lot feel that they are just swept along by them.  The rationale that we use to justify our response is frequently self-serving.  Regardless of our original motivation, it may become, "the bad guys have done this to me".

War of the Rebellion

150 years ago today, southern rebels attacked Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, and began the American War of the Rebellion (known more often today as the Civil War).  It lasted four years and was the greatest tragedy in American history.

President Lincoln, who had sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States", did just that, and the rebels were eventually suppressed.  My ancestors, living in border states, where the loyalties were most divided, struggled through the period.

William Lee Rhodes

Three of my Mother's ggrandfathers, Lewis Igo (1832-1918), William Woods (1833-1914), and  Robert White (1844-1938), served the Union side, either in the Missouri Militia or the Volunteer Cavalry.  My Dad's grandfather, William Lee Rhodes (1840-1902) from Maryland, served the southern Army of Northern Virginia, under General Early (and Robert E. Lee).  His father, George Rhodes, was held briefly as a political prisoner at Fort McHenry, Maryland, in the fall of 1862.

 Robert  Macklin White

My gggrandmother, Nancy Powers White, whose father had been a Missouri State Senator and quite prosperous, saw her farm destroyed by Union forces, and was left  destitute with her sisters (her parents having died shortly before the War).  Her uncle,  Justus Franklin Powers, a doctor and former state legislator, was imprisoned  for assisting southern soldiers.  Her second cousin, Union Lieutenant Colonel Melzar  "Fighting Melz" Richards, was fatally wounded at Amelia Springs, Virginia, on April  5, 1865 (four days before the end of the War) and died at the Union hospital at  Citypoint, Virginia, on April 13.

Snowden Morris, a first cousin of my gggrandmother, Susan Tevis Igo, brought his  family north to Cooper County, Missouri, at the start of the War, and spent 3 1/2  years serving the rebel cause, before finally surrendering May 26, 1865, (being paroled June 7).

After the War, some of the families continued on their farms; others relocated.  The 13th Amendment, in effect December 18, 1865, made slavery, the other major issue along with the preservation of the Union,  illegal.  (Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation issued January 1, 1863, had declared slaves in the rebelling territory free, but did not include slaves in territory not in rebellion, such as the border states, West Virginia, Tennessee, parts of Louisiana, and Texas.)

Women's Work; Men's Work

Because of their labour practices, I don't shop at Wal-Mart, although their prices are probably the lowest. They currently have a class action wage/gender discrimination suit pending against them in the U. S and are strongly anti-union.   This has made me think about practices at other stores at which I shop.

I do my grocery shopping at Save-On-Foods, which is convenient, customer-oriented, and unionized.  However, the work tends to be organized by gender.  The cashiers are almost all female, as are the price checkers; the produce, packaged products, and frozen food/dairy/bread clerks are male; managers and assistant managers are male.  Only the bakery and meat departments seem equally divided.

Some of the work, such as stocking canned goods, may involve a bit more strength. Boxes of produce are heavy, but usually they are put on carts and rolled around.  The division seems to be cultural.

Many of the cashiers are either part-time or have very flexible hours.  I suspect the first, which would keep Save-On from paying benefits.  Some of the cashiers during the week are full-time.  The busiest time is on the weekends, but very few of the weekend staff work during the week, and must be all part-time.

I'd be curious to know the difference in rates between the cashiers and stock clerks.  The cashiers should be paid more, because they have to handle customers (some can be rude), process cash, recognize all products, learn new prices, bag groceries, load carts, and, of course, keep moving.  Those who find this too stressing don't last. Stocking shelves is far more relaxed.

I asked Tyler, who bags groceries when the lines start to get long, why they didn't let him cashier.  He said it was because of the classification.  I've occasionally seen young women being trained as cashiers.  It takes a few days to become knowledgeable and comfortable with the customers.  There is a customer-friendly patter that they are expected to follow: "How are you, today?"; "Did you find everything?"; "Have a nice day."  It seems like men could master this as well as women.

Whether the practices are economic (reduced wages and benefits for part-timers); or cultural (women's work; men's work); or both, I'm not sure.  It seems that there are still a lot of gender barriers to break down. 

       

Surrey Rally

I attended a federal election kick-off rally for Jack Layton and the New Democratic Party at the Sheraton Guildford yesterday.  My constituency, Surrey North, is a swing riding, which has elected both NDP and Conservative MPs in the past.  The local MLAs for Surrey-Fleetwood, Surrey-Whalley, and Surrey-Green Timbers are NDP.  The federal Liberals are a non-factor, always placing third.

The turnout for the rally filled the room, but it was not overflow.  At 9:30 am Sunday morning, it largely attracted long-time NDP members, officials, and candidates.  It was also an event at which I didn't feel particularly old, seeing almost a complete absence of young people.

The two local candidates spoke briefly (the Sheraton Guildford sits on the dividing line between the ridings of Surrey North and Fleetwood-Port Kells), and then Jack came in.  He was limping badly and using a crutch, the result of a stress fracture suffered recently.  He says that he's able to campaign, but I wondered if he'll hold up.  I can't see him doing much main-streeting.

Jack's speech was a pep talk, promising better pensions, more doctors and health services, assistance to families, more affordability, and an attempt to link the Conservatives with the unpopular Harmonized Sales Tax, which caused the BC Premier to resign last fall.  He urged everyone to get out and work for the NDP candidates.

As Jack was speaking, his speech was also displayed on three large tele-prompters, allowing him to see it, regardless of the direction in which he faced.  This gave the impression of speaking spontaneously, but I could read the words before he said them.  Obviously, this technique serves well for people watching at home, but it seemed somewhat artificial for a rally.

Also missing was any literature spelling out details of the NDP program.  Hopefully, this will develop as the campaign progresses.   Speaking generally about improving services or reducing living costs makes the NDP sound similar to the other parties.  They need specific proposals.  He didn't mention the environment, alternative energy sources, job training, youth issues, or the cost of housing.  Of course, you can only do so much in a short speech.

I shook Jack's hand and wished him good luck.  I noticed the NDP were ahead of the other parties with their signs, already staking out good locations.  Voting is May 2.   

Ray Lockard

Ray Lockard and his wife, Yvonne, were longtime friends of our family.  I came across this obituary the other day.

Obituary : Ray W. Lockard

Ray W. Lockard March 11, 1927 - September 22, 2010 Funeral services for Ray will be held at Greenlawn Southwest Mortuary, 2739 Panama Lane, Bakersfield CA, at 3:00 p.m., Monday, September 27, 2010. Visitation will be Sunday, September 26th, from 12:00 to 4:00 p.m. Ray was born in Tolbert TX, the 9th of 11 children, to Thomas and Birdie Lockard. The family moved to Bakersfield in 1939. He attended Kern County Union High School (BHS) and after serving in the Army, met and married the love of his life, Yvonne Jones. They were inseparable for almost sixty years. Ray dedicated his life to Yvonne and his daughters Lisa and Kathy and later to his three beloved grandchildren. He worked as an accountant for Trico, Bender, Apex and Fairway/Houchin. Family and friends will miss his great sense of humor and his intellect. He had an uncanny way of making everyone feel as if they were the most important person in the room. His favorite things were playing dominos at the Petroleum Club and Friday night dinners at Mexicali with family and friends. He and Yvonne were lifetime members of the Bakersfield Racquet Club. They loved playing tennis and played often with good friends Bob and Margaret Self. They also loved their wonderful friends on Cork Lane. Ray is survived by his daughter, Kathy Graham; grandson, Jayce Graham; granddaughters, Kaydee and husband Steve Trojanowski, Candice Graham, Brandee and Chris Ramirez; and beloved brother, T.H. Lockard. Ray was preceded in death by parents, Thomas and Birdie Lockard; his wife, Yvonne; daughter, Lisa; sisters, Nita, Reudean, Mary and Louise; brothers, Ralph, Shaw, Bedford, Chancy and Curtis. In lieu of flowers, make donations to Hoffmann Hospice, 8501 Brimhall Road #100, Bakersfield, CA 93312. Greenlawn Southwest Mortuary

 

Preparing for Disasters

At work, we had many fire drills and alarms over the years.  Get up from your work station immediately, proceed to your designated exit, leave the building, go to the designated assembly point, do not return until you receive the all clear from the fire department.

For earthquakes, it was similar.  When you feel a tremor, duck under your desk or table, wait for the tremors to stop, leave the building if ordered, don't stand near the building, go to the designated assembly point, wait for further instructions. 

It was necessary to practice.  The first time we had an alarm, some staff wanted to log off their computer, finish a task, run to the washroom, or return for a forgotten purse.  After a few trials, we improved.

We also trained first aid attendants, stocked emergency supplies, brought canned food, held monthly meetings of the health and safety committee.  We had inspections for occupational hazards (loose electrical cords, blocked doors, tidiness).  We appointed floor wardens and fire marshals.

Of course, no one knew what would happen if we had a once in two hundred years, 9.0 earthquake.  The building might be severely damaged, the bridges down, the power out, possibly flooding along the Fraser River.  We considered that we might not be able to get home.

In Japan, for all their training for earthquakes, they had not practiced what to do in a real tsunami.  It's difficult to anticipate exactly what the situation might be: how high the water might reach, how much time you might have, how to protect vulnerable people. Clearly, they needed a better plan in some of the towns affected. Those who left immediately when the alarm sounded, survived.  Those who procrastinated, did not.  In all cases, you need a plan; to practice it; to act on it immediately.

There are similarities between the Japan tsunamis and the Katrina hurricane.  Risks not properly assessed.  Failure of the evacuation plan.  Resistance of  the population.  Difficulty assisting the elderly and sick.  In some ways, these seem to be recurring factors in all large scale disasters.   

Free Speech -- U. S. Style

The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 that the Westboro Baptist Church has a right under  the 1st Amendment  to picket funerals of soldiers and display signs such as, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", "God Hates Fags", and "God Hates Jews".   In Canada and European countries, their signs would be prohibited as hate speech.  In the U. S., they are protected as free speech.

The protection stems from a strict legalistic interpretation of the U. S. Constitution regarding  freedom of speech, although the U. S. does place some limits on it.  Initially, it may be limited by considerations of place, time, and manner.  You may not, for example, shout your message in a quiet neighborhood at 3:00 in the morning. You may not be able to say what you want in your workplace or on a university campus.  You may not incite a riot or violence against a group or individual, where the prospect of violence is imminent.

However, if the violence is not imminent, you are in a public place, and not interfering with others, you may spout hate speech as much as you like, attacking race, religion, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

I wonder whether this "freedom" really serves the United States, or  is even what the framers of the Constitution intended.

Other countries realize that attacking diverse groups because of  race, ethnicity, or religion divides the society and leads to group animosity.  Attacking someone for gender or sexual orientation is degrading.  It's hard to see that allowing this with impunity promotes in any way a stable, harmonious society, or "promotes the general welfare", which is a principal responsibility of laws and government.

The argument that hate speech may be prohibited only if produces "imminent" violence, but is protected if it only contributes to "eventual" violence seems flawed.  In either case, the harm is potentially the same.