The Robot's Thoughts

On Michael Moore's Weblog there's a scathing and yet accurate take on the GM bankruptcy. Money spent saving a company with management that can only be described as "inept and stupid" is money wasted. Money spent saving GM's workforce to build American light-rail and green technology is money well spent.

Only time will tell what GM will become. As it enters Chapter 11, it will continue to operate. But does this mean it will still focus on developing next-gen cars such as the Chevy Volt? Will it become our industrial backbone and build the components needed for a more competitive infrastructure? Or will see an H4 and a convertible Chevy Cobalt? More "more of the same" badge engineering?

One major indicator to me will be who becomes the new CEO after the company emerges from Chapter 11. Every single foreign car company's C-level management has engineering, math, or physics degrees. These people grasp and understand the technical problems of manufacturing, global supply chains, automation, waste recycling, etc. Its no surprise these companies emerged as better built and efficiency oriented. When it comes from the top, it becomes part of the culture.

Former GM CEO Rick Wagoneer, on the other hand, spent 26 years as president of the Marketing Department. As UAW obligations rose over the past 25 years, and revenues shrunk, he merely engaged in too little, too late. He denied climate change. He over committed to SUVs and trucks.

I, for one, would like to see an automotive engineering company actually run by engineers. Its too bad I feel GM's culture is incapable of transforming itself in such a way that it could lure consumers such as myself (that only by foreign-branded cars) back to the fold.

Labels: cars, links, money, politics

I'm stealing this from my former Boss and good friend Don, who posed this on Facebook.

It is a common theme in our society that it is admirable to be attracted to people because of their personality or intelligence, and less than admirable to be attracted to people because of their looks or their money. At the same time, it is generally held to be admirable to admire or despise others because of their choices and actions, and less than admirable - actively wrong, even - to admire or despise due to accidents of birth or circumstance.

My thesis is that looks and money are much more under a person's voluntary control than personality or intelligence, and that therefore these two positions are logically incompatible. My question is, how did this contradiction come to be so commonly held?

While the influences on a person's financial situation are most often not simple, and certainly there are many rich and poor people whose fiscal standing is largely due to happenstance, it is nevertheless the case that, in general, one's monetary resources can be enlarged through one's own choices and efforts. Likewise with appearance: Although altering basic structure is hazardous and expensive, making the best of what you were born with - eating healthy and hitting the gym, getting a good haircut, wearing flattering clothing, paying attention to details - is something all but the very poorest can, in principle, choose to do.

On the other hand, it is simply not possible to choose to have a sense of humor if you don't have one, to be good with language if you aren't, to have an easier grasp of math than you already do. As Sacha Guitry said, "You can pretend to be serious; you can't pretend to be witty." And you can't pretend to have an aptitude for quantum physics or for writing good poetry or for comic timing. Those just aren't choices you can make.

So if you meet someone rich and good-looking, there is at least some chance that those qualities are due to the person's own efforts. If you meet someone brilliant and witty, that is certainly due to good luck alone. So why is it "shallow" to be attracted to the rich and good-looking?

My friend Melissa posits that due to our "Western" society's values being shaped so deeply by Christian morals, we tend to value the innate (or "God-given") whereas traits such as greed or vanity (which again, anyone can work towards improving) are "deadly sins".

I don't agree or disagree completely with either statement. On the other hand, I also don't think its entirely shallow to be so attracted to money. Money isn't the root of all evil, love of money is the root of all evil. Money is society's way of valuating one's labor. If we assume that people are paid in a fair manner relating to their value, as judged by society, then someone who has generated more wealth is someone who was or is "more valuable" to society.

While I'm sure someone can argue that in their belief system there are things that can't have a price put on them, or that love is worth more than all the money in the world, there are certainly those who feel that the access to opportunities in education the wealthy have traditionally had would outweigh any "creature comforts". This assumes, of course, that the person of wealth has no vices that endanger your health or safety (drinker, beater, drug user, etc).

However....if someone is "smart", even by innate gifts, they're needed in society. We have a large shortage of scientists and engineers of high quality in this country. We need people with "innate" smartness; we rely on them for breakthroughs that might not be possible without their creativity and ideas. We rely on ideas with innate talents to make us laugh.

It takes all kinds, and I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts.

Labels: blogging, money, ramblings, thoughts

Fallout 3 has forced me to finally break down and bite the bullet.

So today, with my big fat and as-of-yet-unspent paycheck, I broke down and bought a Xbox 360 Pro system (I don't need the Elite), Fallout 3, and a DVI adapter. It came in at a little over $400 from Amazon with overnight shipping. Not too shabby.

Labels: money, personal, video games

This is a great article on compensating young employees who're looking for "growth". A halfway decent developer, if he's not too busy blogging, will probably double his productivity for the first 3 years of employment at a company (assuming he stays). This is because if they're keeping up with what's going on in the industry and not just doing what they're told, they're creating value without you having to train them. And that skillset is highly portable.

And of course, the experience and know-how he has of the internal mechanics of your company is something you can't get from the pool of job applicants. Its something he takes with him.

So having shitty raises for the people in the "trenches" is a really dumb idea. I know that once you get a reputation of having "shitty raises", anyone that knows anyone at the company that's applying for a job is going to tack on a premium to their base salary. Its fact.

So to recap, read the article. And having a system where "busting your hump" gets you a 4% raise, and doing nothing gets you a 3% raise, and you have a system that's going to be gamed so that people do nothing. And then, what're you really paying for?

Labels: corporate culture, money, personal, raises, ramblings, today's generation, Web Development