bostonbubble.com

john p · Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 1820

I'm not sure if what you're saying is true because I honestly don't know.

What I do know is that when I see an organization or place that is good at something they value it. When you look at their weaknesses, they usually dismiss them and don't value the subject as much as what they are good at. I worked for a lab architecture firm and they had “design” people, and “lab planners”. People became principles from either track. When a principle had a job they would staff their team accordingly: the lab planner would have a high ratio of lab planners on the team and the designer would stack the team with designers. The trouble was, in my opinion, that their output was not balanced. Further, they didn’t value the in between people (those that coordinated), which is what I was. You got the feeling that by standing in the middle of the road you could get hit by a car on either side because both factions competed for what they thought was the dominant leg of the stool.

Boston, as a portfolio of talent needs to be balanced. The reason for this is that a city could end up being a boutique industry center, but might not have the supporting context to round out something.

Think about tooth to tail, if the tooth is in one city, and the tail is in 5 others, you're going to get your ass kicked. The old Yankee tradition of the lone farmer that needs to know how to milk cows, fix machinery, trade, etc. should be the seed for our future value system. Ben Franklin is the man in my opinion.

Boston needs to be a center, a balanced center where they can do things soup to nuts. If we make it too painful for someone to be a centerfielder, we'll end up with a gaping hole in center field...

Useless information from my MBA: They say that the market sees a brand as one of four ways: high end (Mercedes), specialty (jeep), masses (ford), and low end (Kia). They say it confuses the market when a brand is inconsistent i.e. if a Mercedes introduced an entry level car. I’m not footnoting some business guru here…

So what is Boston? Like many cities, Boston's a mix of brands, some high some low, some specialty and some for the masses. However, the water level for Boston is higher than many others due to the education level, the allure of snow shoveling, etc. So when the dumber MBA's think they are so smart about off shoring one of their components, they will run into tooth to tail issues and will lose the battle because their army is too spread out.

Boston needs to hold together, work like a tribe. The success of one discipline at the expense of another will just hurt everyone in the long run. On the one hand, if we have the best welfare system in the country we’ll attract the wrong type of people, on the other, if hard working people who play by the rules can’t earn a living here, we’ll lose our tooth to tail and it doesn’t matter how smart any MIT or Harvard guy thinks they are, Massachusetts will decline.

Guest · Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:47 pm GMT Post subject:

john p · Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 1820

You're right, that's today's reality. It is a weakness as well. What's the end game in that scenario?

When I was right out of college I learned something kind of funny. I had a problem with my new car. I called the customer line. I was on hold for about 1/2 hour. Then, I went back and hit the option that was for if you owed them money, they picked right up. So if you have a problem and you want to complain you get India and if you owe money you get New York.

What this communicates to customers is that "We don't care". No matter how many consultants you bring in to tell you what you want to hear and all the Indian style love fests where you fall backwards into a trusted colleague's arms, if someone picks up the phone in India and they are reading from a script you are essentially giving the finger to your customers.

john p · Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 1820

And that "alpha" mindset will be our demise. When people take more than they deserve, that's capitalism. No harm, no foul. You better be careful that somebody doesn't creep up on you and take your business if you get soft. That’s capitalism too. The problem is when people start to brainwash themselves like they deserve it. Once they enter this delusion they are toast. Boston does have an ego, much of which it deserves to have.

The reason why this is germane to housing is that people's egos were not fundamentally grounded. If they could in fact create the profits that they thought they could we would not have this correction. People lost touch their personal fundamental value and as a result they over projected their earnings and overcommitted.

The same way a wood frame house collapses, a bit of rot spreads. It doesn't fall because one or two bad members, others slide in and carry the load. The frame sags. If you don't allow access for new members to replace old ones, it will go down. If you've got the stuff you've got to find it in you to have the stones to step forward.

Look at Boston now like the 2004 election. Kerry had the right answers. His confusion like many of ours was weighing the evil of Saddam with the incompetence of the Bush Administration. The reason why he didn't win was because he didn't have the balls to call George W. Bush dumb and a liar. He knew the truth but couldn't drive it home because he was too nice. Because he was too nice, we are in this situation today. Why didn't he say "In 2007 we are going to look back and scratch our heads and wonder why we spent billions and billions in the wrong country based on bogus information, this man right here is so stubborn and dumb that he will go down the wrong path no matter what any Military General tells him?" Hillary has stones, almost to the point where she's too unlikable. She wasn't afraid to call Bush stupid.

In order for Boston to heal, the individuals with brains need to transcend the soft rotted delusional culture. With fundamentally strong people we will have a strong social fabric. We'll end up like a paper tiger if the paradigm doesn't shift. I say this so emphatically because that professional who got his ass kicked in the tunnel ceiling scenario, the business guy made him take out half the anchor points to save costs. That professional needed balls. He needed to be in an organization that valued safety and security of the citizens. When spineless professionals make less, that’s just money, but when it erodes to when safety is at stake, they need to do their duty and show courage.

We’re losing in Iraq the same way we’re losing in economics. Our tooth to tail is too big. Sure we can eradicate anyone, but we don’t have the predator skills to hunt and chase an elusive prey. I wonder how many soldiers know how to say “Which way did he go” in Arabic? The problem is that when we eradicate our enemy we end up hitting innocent people. When innocent people die we manufacture more enemies. These are the non-linear aspects of war. So as an individual, do some grounded fundamental analysis: If someone said that they were in your country to help you and they blew up your family, wouldn’t you be angry. Ask yourself, how much do you love your family and what would you do if someone eradicated them? Those are the fundamental questions, fundamental meaning what Jesus taught us “Treat others the way you would want to be treated”. Gee whiz, that fundamental statement is so obvious and grounded, but when you look at Iraqi’s do you see them as inferior beings? Do you see yourself as an “alpha”. That delusion is so counter to being an American. That delusion is what has given us aristocracy, cast systems, communism etc. We believe in inalienable rights, fundamentals, grounded. Our founding fathers learned this because it was getting shoved up their ass. You learn a lot when your head’s being kicked in. If you’re head’s never been kicked in, it will be harder for you to prevent a situation where it does. It is so frustrating because if some individuals weren’t so freaking greedy we’d all be so much better off and the end game if decent people don’t step forward is pretty bad.

The future is there for the taking for Boston. Being strong enough to be the alpha is part of it, not forgetting where you came from is the other.

Guest · Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:48 pm GMT Post subject:

Boston ITer · Guest

John, you're a great polemicist and I agree with your sentiment.

Perhaps what's missing in your analysis is that notion that all empires come to an end and the Boston area could just be in the throes of that, the fall of the USA as the world leader of science and technology as it becomes another megasized (and metastasized) UK, a financial hub for those oligarchs of emerging nations with less enforcement of private property laws (Russia, China, Venezuela, etc).

john p · Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 1820

Thanks, but just like Jack Parker say's about his BU Hockey team, we don't rebuild, we reload.

Boston's going to remain strong, believe me, the fart smellers just need a bit of a pep talk. Some techies don't make much because they don't ask for much and don't whine like the pussies. Our society needs you folks to be a bit more aggressive.

Guest · Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:47 pm GMT Post subject:

Another on outsourcing:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mukherjee&sid=a_bc6P8Vi0ls

[ snippet]

...The operative word in Roddam's question is: "better."

Most economists believe that services outsourcing is only about getting things done "cheaper."

They think it is transient and self-adjusting: A rise in the inflation-adjusted exchange rate of the exporting nation will make its cost advantage disappear; the same relative-price mechanism will also increase developed-country exports to places such as India and China. New jobs will be created to replace the ones that are now being lost.

What this argument misses is that the third-party providers who are winning ownership of business processes will move them from one developing country to another. Profits will be repatriated to developed-nation companies by the truckload. But the jobs won't go back. Not for a long time.

[ snippet ]

Wages Versus Profits

Princeton University Professor Alan Blinder says he is being "treated as a heretic" by fellow economists for merely suggesting that offshoring of service jobs will be painful for U.S. workers.

Blinder has a point. Gains from free trade in services will occur, though not to the same people -- or even the same class of people -- who lose from it.

The manufacturing economy may serve as an example. Apple Inc. had fewer than 18,000 employees as of Sept. 30, 2006. Revenue per worker was in excess of $1 million. That's 10 times the value an average worker produced last year at Taiwan's Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., a contract manufacturer -- among other things -- of Apple iPod music players.

However, Hon Hai, according to Bloomberg data, had 382,000 employees. That's 382,000 paychecks

Boston ITer · Guest

john p · Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 1820

Now let's say that some of these companies decide to play fast and loose and find a better deal than the 312,000 employees in one country and just keep bidding to the lowest bidder and keep moving, don't you think you're going to have 312,000 pissed off Chinese people if you take away their meal ticket? These are people. I wonder if some of these companies see the potential political fallout of what their policies could do. Eventually, 312,000 pissed off people aren't just going to sit around.

In my very brief study of China and my trip there, I learned a couple of things: most importantly, people are people. I went to the Beijing Zoo and had a blast. Monkey house, bears, and the big cats all in one building, just awesome to hear them growling and purring and to look in their eyes so close up. Anyway, it was a work day and you saw tons of grandparents with their grandkids. They had the same look in their eyes like it was the best chapter in their lives...

Second, from my reading it seemed that Chinese culture went back and forth between Buddhism and the teachings of Confucius. It seemed that there would be a war and the pendulum would shift one way or another. What I found interesting was that Buddhism seemed to resemble American values as far as “All men are created equal”. When reading it, you’d get a sense that nobody was more special than anyone else. Confucius’s teaching was more about if you were the special guy that you ought to be benevolent. These teaching seemed more like the Queen of England sort of stuff, meaning if you acted like Marie Antoinette, the people won’t love you and if they get pissed they will take you down. It was almost a blueprint for wealthy people not to piss off the people beneath them. So think about the context of warring factions. You need to motivate people to fight; you need to promise them something right? So, you’re either fighting for a benevolent ruler or you’re overtaking a tyrant.

What I found interesting was the method of rendering the population inert. How they pacified them or got their followers to be complete passive followers and to almost ignore the feelings that you were being screwed.

A very interesting combination of persuasion you will find with bullies that try to intimidate is that bullies often mix humor. Think about the Joe Pesce scene in the movie “Goodfellas” where he does the “Do you think I’m funny” scene… “What am I a clown here to amuse you”? What does he do at the end after building the fear and tension; he cracks a joke to alleviate the pressure and to get the guys to go along after establishing dominance. This is street smarts; you will often find bullies using fear and humor in combination.

Bush tried to use tactics like stunning scared follower types with fear and then getting them to be proud to be ignorant rednecks. For example, I think Larry the Cable Guy is great, he’s a total funny bastard, but he satirizes the low hanging fruits for politicians, the lazy, dumb ones that you just need to wave a flag to and throw out red meat to every now and again. Larry the Cable Guy was performing at Sean Hannity’s “Freedom Concert”. So you’ve got Hannity who’s the bully who throws out the red meat to the crowd and Larry the Cable guy to just pacify you, make you laugh and feel connected through laughter. Notice how the American Flag is used almost like a brand label. It is almost like it’s trying to say, see that flag up there, that represents us, and those that don’t agree, they don’t even like that flag, they want to burn it. http://www.hannityfreedomconcert.com/concerts/atlanta.htm You’d never see anyone trying to burn the flag with the “Git-er-Done” Confederate Flag torch lighter. Talk about branding; check out the Larry the Cable Guy’s brand, American Flag, Confederate Flag, etc. This guy fakes his whole act; he’s like Andrew Dice Clay (which is fine). Take a look. http://www.ifilm.com/video/2743413 I’m a huge professional wrestling fan, so I get the whole satire thing. The problem is that not many people understand that he isn’t genuine or even meant to be genuine. The bullies and the rich look for the easiest votes. You know, I went into the Las Vegas casino that looked like the big castle. The food sucked, the décor was terrible, and you could tell it catered to the low end on that strip. I wonder if that is actually a smarter move, get the dumb ones who make the dumb bets. They might not have the bank accounts of someone staying at the Bellagio, but their stupidity might be more of a benefit. So our political system has the richest bonding with the easiest to convert. I find it insidious when I see people of power and privilege trying to pacify and demean those lower than them, when they use the flag, it is very distasteful. I wonder when the Larry the Cable Guy and NASCAR fans will wake up and see that they are being exploited by the rich. The rich aren’t sending their kids to be slaughtered in Iraq. I wish these people had street smarts. I wish these folks would open up Fortune’s 500 and see how much the oil companies and financial companies have sucked out of us in the last year. The propaganda these folks hear is that anyone who wants to protect the environment is a tree-hugger, anti-American, un-macho male.

Getting back to China, some of the folks there are conditioned to be passive, but people are people, and if you truly believe in inalienable rights, don’t you think that that sleeping dragon won’t ever wake up if they are getting kicked in the head? I don’t think that they are angels by any means, but think about the reality, the story that gets fed to the 312,000 employees that might lose their jobs when a US corporation decides to pick up shop and move to find the next cheaper alternative. I think we’re playing with fire. The human spirit kind of fire. We can put in our own leaders that are friendly to our interests, and they can try to either put fear in their people or they might be great at pacifying them, but this playing with fire stuff is dangerous. Mike Dukakis said in his 1988 Nomination Acceptance Speech: http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/1116/dukakis88.html “We’re going to have a real war—not a phony war—against drugs, and we won’t be doing business with drug-running Panamanian dictators.” www.oilempire.us/graphics/rumsfield-saddam.gif Dukakis lost because of this picture. http://www.berkshirefinearts.com/images/upload/images/170_DukakisTank.jpg The caption of Dukakis on the tank say’s “America can’t afford that risk”. How about the risk of Saddam Hussein? So the guys glad handing Saddam were better for our security? The thing you need to ask yourself is that even if you have invested your time and money to know what the right thing is, the bully can take it away from you.

How this relates to housing is a bit of insight on how some of the predators will come at you. Some of the sleazy realtors that you will face will try to be buddy, buddy with you and tell jokes to loosen you up; they will hit you hard with an aggressive statement to put you in your place; after they stun you they will try to loosen you up with jokes until you are putty. I’m not saying being confident and funny are bad, it is just look at how they are being used, to make you feel or encourage you to be dumb and small, or to help build you up and make you feel better.

Boston ITer · Guest

John, the potential loss of 300K jobs from China to let's say Zimbabwe or rural Vietnam via multinationals isn't the scenario.

In a sense, what China's done is focus an imperial circle strategy of keeping research and development, manufacturing, and higher end services within her domain. So what's happening is that what were formerly American multinationals will eventually become shells with the guts of the decisions (since eventually all the working capital will be in Asia-Pacific) being made by east Asian (ala Chinese) executives with the Americas being little more than a store front for western societies. True, the wealthiest Americans will still have a pile of global equity but for the most part, they'll be more like commodities traders than actual managers shifting one asset class for another to keep up with 'the Soros'.

The cheaper service work, i.e. coding and code maintenance, will go wherever it's the cheapest and since China's the mother ship, Vietnam will most likely be the coveted 'low cost' offshore destination for IT. Realize, India and China have not historically been allies (from either a race/ethnic or cultural/political angle) and India has issues in getting education out to its non-elite masses to be price competitive in the longer term.

Therefore, the revolutions that you're envisioning will be in places like India, Namibia, or Phillipines where the actual capital/decision making (imperial circle) has been handed over from the west (the UK/USA during the 20th century) to China Inc (in the 21st).