"To play at the top of your form, you cannot be emotionally involved in the results." --Arnold Snyder, Card Player magazine
Showing--your true--emotions in a game of Poker makes you predictable. An expensive idea. Somebody at your table will be taking advantage of your vulnerability. To add insult to injury, sure as hell you will be a victim of your emotionally altered state of mind, and your impaired judgment will cost you. Overt excitement is counter productive for the purpose of making money, and so it is letting other players see how angry or how depressed you are.
Permitting emotions to be important disables rational thinking and overrides adequate decision making. Duh. What a concept! You knew that, of course, and you would not make the mistake of worrying about outcomes or of getting aroused in expectation of money you may be getting in the future.
You have noticed, we are not talking about Poker anymore. The word 'money' alone is a crank you can use to drive the best of us crazy with. I don't mean crisp bank notes. No. The associations each one of us comes up with involuntarily, when the issue of money enters the thought process, are clouding our rational mind. Our fears, hopes, dreams, and traumatic experiences easily dominate the moment. Collective fears--about the recession for instance, expressed in the media or at the water cooler--may affect us more than the recession itself.
Pleasant emotions about the expectation of huge piles of future dough and uncomfortable money-related emotional states are equally distracting. To be exact, it hardly matters whether you think of money as a past experience, as your current situation, or as a future event. Further, it is of little consequence if you feel positively or in negative terms about money.
The fact THAT you are permitting yourself to react to money with ANY emotional state renders every single undertaking less productive and less profitable.
Our emotional responses to money are similar to our reaction to mom. When you are at a critical point of negotiating an important business transaction or you are being interviewed for your dream job, the last thing you desire is for your mother to pop in. Well, unless something went awry with you in the distant past.
Loving your mom or mammon has nothing to do with this phenomenon. It's not about losing interest in money or in spending time with dear old mom. On the contrary, and as you may recall it's not even about mom or money. The money--and your mom--IN YOUR HEAD must respect boundaries. Just as listening to your mother's chatter about her experience at the hair salon can't possibly improve your game at the card table, the voices in your head chattering away about money need to shut up!
While you are working on the suicide clutch of your 1948 Harley-Davidson Panhead, it is incredibly dumb to be in tatters over your financial situation. Are we finally agreeing with each other? Now, while you are working on ANYTHING, it is advisable to leave your stupid emotions aside.
You cannot make decent money while thinking about money and worse, while being bullied or lured into a corner by your money-induced emotions.
I know, I have said the same thing over and over again, but in this case redundancy was necessary. Why? Because you and I, we both have allowed the occasional meddling of money-baggage and money-hype with our work that we should have solely focused on. You haven't? Good for you. Most of us are guilty of having done so too often and for too long.
Not being "emotionally involved in the results" of your business supports the purpose of a business to produce hefty profits. What is more important to you, your silly emotions or profit? In all likelihood you can't have both. We cannot be happy if we permit emotions to run our lives, and we can't succeed financially when we give our emotions the upper hand in business decisions.
Whatever you are feeling as far as money is concerned is poisonous for the actual making of money. As paradoxical as this idea may look to you, it is simplifying life.
Just work!
No painful worries are wearing you down. No addictive hopes are lifting you up to fake highs until natural boom-and-bust cycles are tossing you back into the ditch of--equally artificial--hopelessness.
Do what you know best. You will live through times with a bunch of money. Relatively speaking, that is. And it is probable that you will be experiencing times with relatively little income. Not everybody goes from a small income to a large one over the decades and fortunately, not everyone drops from lofty monetary highs to pitiful lows. Realistically, both versions can happen to any of us. Whatever it will be for you, you'll fare better leaving your damn emotions out of the equation.
Work. And enjoy your work. Especially if and when you hate it.
Egbert Sukop
P.S.: My new book 'How to Better Hate Your Job' is rebellious in its nature. Who would have thought! A provocative perspective on employment, work, and money. Go get your copy!
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
niche
In my new book 'How to Better Hate Your Job' I advocate the exploitation of things you hate, for fun and profit. What does that mean? Isn't it more profitable to do what I love? Shouldn't I concentrate on activities I love just because love feels better? And anyway, isn't love morally superior to hatred?
Instead of filling another useless book with the futile attempt of a dissatisfying answer, I shall give you two practical examples of individuals whose lives are clearly expressing how enjoyment and--if you so desire--monetary gain can be derived from subjects you did NOT like so much, originally.
We talk about freedom a great deal, but since freedom is not expensive--it's free, in fact, unless you live in Russia or in South Korea (South, you read that correctly, where blogging the wrong thing can get you arrested)--we don't value freedom as much as we could.
Half the nation complains that something they hated has been taken away from them?! We hate our jobs, but we demand not to be deprived of what we hate. Hey, don't give the subject of our hatred to people in developing markets. The stuff we hate is still too precious to be wasted on desperate people in China and Vietnam. They deserve worse than that. Individuals in India may love what we hate, and that is a clear sign our hated jobs are still too good for them.
Looks to me that the only thing we love about our work is the absence of individualism and freedom! At least 87% of employees hate their jobs, but the truly disturbing news is that they seem to hate their own individuality MORE. I am wrong? Of course, I am wrong: we bring the kids to soccer practice; we buy expensive rims; and we tattoo our asses to express how cool and individualistic we really are. Right, nobody else does that! You mean fashion equals individualism?
Apropos 'fashion:'
Enough ranting! Here are the examples I promised you. Nancy Judd used to work for the city of Santa Fe--the trash department, to be exact--wearing a furry blue "Carlos Coyote" costume and raising awareness for recycling in new Mexico (Wall Street Journal, Jan. 13th, 2009). She ran workshops and aired radio advertisements to get New Mexicans to recycle. And she hated that people weren't paying attention.
Today, Nancy Judd produces Dumpster Couture, "trashion." She crafts clothing from plastic bags, electrical wire, old cassette tapes, Obama campaign posters and fliers, glass shards, rusty nails, vinyl convertible tops, door hangers, etc. On Saturday, her work will be shown in Washington at the Green Inaugural Ball honoring President-elect Barack Obama.
Ms. Judd cannot sketch. She has no training in fashion. She gets her design ideas from old paper dolls. She solved the problem of making a saucy cocktail dress from a shower curtain.
Nancy refuses to make money with her work, even though she could: she markets her stuff as educational tools, illustrating problems with solid waste and raising awareness through instructive art exhibits (shown at the Pittsburgh Airport, for instance).
The creation of a single piece has taken her as long as 200 to 400 hours of work!
Now, I am asking you, can you see hatred, passion, fun, yes and even your damn love, profit potential, and above all: individuality in the mix?
Next case, Gilbert Kaplan (source: The Economist, November 2008), an economist and former publisher of a newsletter for investors, analysts, and money managers: In 1965, he heard Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 2 in c minor, the "Resurrection" for the first time, and he just found himself "sobbing, absolutely hysterical."
Mr. Kaplan, a perfectionist, wasn't pleased with the way professional conductors interpreted Mahler's work. He didn't like Leonard Bernstein out-mahlering Mahler, for example. Kaplan had no tolerance for conductors overruling or ignoring Mahler's meticulous instructions, while caring more for their own egos.
Ergo, Gilbert Kaplan began conducting Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 2 himself! I believe, he does not conduct anything else. Mr. Kaplan has dedicated the last 40 years to conducting this one symphony. A nut? Probably, in the eyes of many. But with a sober scholarly approach, this bloody amateur and unskilled dreamer is now acknowledged as the leading technical authority on Mahler's 2nd symphony.
Meanwhile, Kaplan has conducted ensembles at La Scala in Milan, Munich, Vienna, and opened the prestigious Salzburg festival. He gave Mahler's work its Chinese premiere in Beijing. His recording has outsold Bernstein, Pierre Boulez, Claudio Abbado, and everybody else's. On December 8th, 2008, Mr. Kaplan conducted the New York Philharmonic 100 years to the date after Mahler, with the same orchestra, conducted the American premiere of this piece.
Gilbert Kaplan has done something that Gustav Mahler failed to accomplish himself: he diverted public attention away from the morbidity of some of Mahler's music. Thanks largely to Kaplan, Mahler's image as a "composer of doom" has been put to rest.
We crave to be so damn creative, but we easily miss the simplicity and the genius of the "Kaplan approach." The man has not invented anything. He has doggedly studied something that exists already. Plus, he absorbed every note, letter, and detail of and about Mahler and this particular piece of music. That alone is an invention, and Gilbert Kaplan changed history.
I don't think Mr. Kaplan sat down one day, thinking what he could do or how he could make more money. He had NO CHOICE. He had to do what he has spent the last four decades on, dictated by his passion. He didn't ask his cousin whether it would be a good idea to pick up conducting Mahler. EVERY cousin and well-meaning friend would tell you "NO!" Don't do such a foolish thing!
There is NO motivation for you to be passionate and free, to do what you can't not do, and to be the individual you are. I am convinced every single human being is a damn genius in at least one particular field. And not a single one of us is too dense or too dull to figure out what the hell that individual genius department may be.
And the best of all: there is no how-to manual available or necessary for you to be the individual you are and to enjoy your freedom to the max.
Egbert Sukop
P.S.: Hey, buy my book 'How to Better Hate Your Job.' It's about time, and I'll be glad you did!
Instead of filling another useless book with the futile attempt of a dissatisfying answer, I shall give you two practical examples of individuals whose lives are clearly expressing how enjoyment and--if you so desire--monetary gain can be derived from subjects you did NOT like so much, originally.
We talk about freedom a great deal, but since freedom is not expensive--it's free, in fact, unless you live in Russia or in South Korea (South, you read that correctly, where blogging the wrong thing can get you arrested)--we don't value freedom as much as we could.
Half the nation complains that something they hated has been taken away from them?! We hate our jobs, but we demand not to be deprived of what we hate. Hey, don't give the subject of our hatred to people in developing markets. The stuff we hate is still too precious to be wasted on desperate people in China and Vietnam. They deserve worse than that. Individuals in India may love what we hate, and that is a clear sign our hated jobs are still too good for them.
Looks to me that the only thing we love about our work is the absence of individualism and freedom! At least 87% of employees hate their jobs, but the truly disturbing news is that they seem to hate their own individuality MORE. I am wrong? Of course, I am wrong: we bring the kids to soccer practice; we buy expensive rims; and we tattoo our asses to express how cool and individualistic we really are. Right, nobody else does that! You mean fashion equals individualism?
Apropos 'fashion:'
Enough ranting! Here are the examples I promised you. Nancy Judd used to work for the city of Santa Fe--the trash department, to be exact--wearing a furry blue "Carlos Coyote" costume and raising awareness for recycling in new Mexico (Wall Street Journal, Jan. 13th, 2009). She ran workshops and aired radio advertisements to get New Mexicans to recycle. And she hated that people weren't paying attention.
Today, Nancy Judd produces Dumpster Couture, "trashion." She crafts clothing from plastic bags, electrical wire, old cassette tapes, Obama campaign posters and fliers, glass shards, rusty nails, vinyl convertible tops, door hangers, etc. On Saturday, her work will be shown in Washington at the Green Inaugural Ball honoring President-elect Barack Obama.
Ms. Judd cannot sketch. She has no training in fashion. She gets her design ideas from old paper dolls. She solved the problem of making a saucy cocktail dress from a shower curtain.
Nancy refuses to make money with her work, even though she could: she markets her stuff as educational tools, illustrating problems with solid waste and raising awareness through instructive art exhibits (shown at the Pittsburgh Airport, for instance).
The creation of a single piece has taken her as long as 200 to 400 hours of work!
Now, I am asking you, can you see hatred, passion, fun, yes and even your damn love, profit potential, and above all: individuality in the mix?
Next case, Gilbert Kaplan (source: The Economist, November 2008), an economist and former publisher of a newsletter for investors, analysts, and money managers: In 1965, he heard Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 2 in c minor, the "Resurrection" for the first time, and he just found himself "sobbing, absolutely hysterical."
Mr. Kaplan, a perfectionist, wasn't pleased with the way professional conductors interpreted Mahler's work. He didn't like Leonard Bernstein out-mahlering Mahler, for example. Kaplan had no tolerance for conductors overruling or ignoring Mahler's meticulous instructions, while caring more for their own egos.
Ergo, Gilbert Kaplan began conducting Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 2 himself! I believe, he does not conduct anything else. Mr. Kaplan has dedicated the last 40 years to conducting this one symphony. A nut? Probably, in the eyes of many. But with a sober scholarly approach, this bloody amateur and unskilled dreamer is now acknowledged as the leading technical authority on Mahler's 2nd symphony.
Meanwhile, Kaplan has conducted ensembles at La Scala in Milan, Munich, Vienna, and opened the prestigious Salzburg festival. He gave Mahler's work its Chinese premiere in Beijing. His recording has outsold Bernstein, Pierre Boulez, Claudio Abbado, and everybody else's. On December 8th, 2008, Mr. Kaplan conducted the New York Philharmonic 100 years to the date after Mahler, with the same orchestra, conducted the American premiere of this piece.
Gilbert Kaplan has done something that Gustav Mahler failed to accomplish himself: he diverted public attention away from the morbidity of some of Mahler's music. Thanks largely to Kaplan, Mahler's image as a "composer of doom" has been put to rest.
We crave to be so damn creative, but we easily miss the simplicity and the genius of the "Kaplan approach." The man has not invented anything. He has doggedly studied something that exists already. Plus, he absorbed every note, letter, and detail of and about Mahler and this particular piece of music. That alone is an invention, and Gilbert Kaplan changed history.
I don't think Mr. Kaplan sat down one day, thinking what he could do or how he could make more money. He had NO CHOICE. He had to do what he has spent the last four decades on, dictated by his passion. He didn't ask his cousin whether it would be a good idea to pick up conducting Mahler. EVERY cousin and well-meaning friend would tell you "NO!" Don't do such a foolish thing!
There is NO motivation for you to be passionate and free, to do what you can't not do, and to be the individual you are. I am convinced every single human being is a damn genius in at least one particular field. And not a single one of us is too dense or too dull to figure out what the hell that individual genius department may be.
And the best of all: there is no how-to manual available or necessary for you to be the individual you are and to enjoy your freedom to the max.
Egbert Sukop
P.S.: Hey, buy my book 'How to Better Hate Your Job.' It's about time, and I'll be glad you did!
Saturday, January 10, 2009
loaded and useless
Who cares about becoming a millionaire?
Millionaires are too common: now, you can find self-help books promising to get you on the road toward ending up a billionaire. Oh my Gawd, how intimidating! Last title I looked into explained thoroughly how to save $1,000 when you purchase your next car. You buy a million cars and you have saved a billion bucks. Everybody can do that! What?!
Call me a sucker. For the past 35 years I have read a plethora of get-rich material, nearly a thousand books filled with money-making, success inducing snake oil. Everything I have read could be condensed to a 25 page manual if you want to waste that much paper.
You don't get rich with that type of nonsense, but it used to be somewhat entertaining. I can't help it, I am merely bored out of my skull reading such garbage today. Mostly it is recycled waste from the 1970s and '80s. What idiot does one have to be to entertain the goal 'millionaire' or 'billionaire,' anyway? As if that had a quality just by itself.
Please do understand me: I have nothing against billionaires! People do what they want to do and they end up in the money, preferably lots of it. Fine! Absolutely fantastic and I have respect for a bunch of them. Please understand me again correctly: I do not respect individuals for the heaps of money they have accumulated. I respect them--if I do--for the character they have and for certain things they have done. Their money is almost meaningless. I am glad it's there but that is that.
On the other hand, desperately trying to make money no matter what, in order to call yourself millionaire or billionaire is as empty as anything can be. Such folks are living--do they, really?--breathing pathetic jokes.
The question is not 'what to do to become a millionaire,' but why?
To be better off? To buy yourself out of the trouble you are in now? To gain freedom you don't experience today? To feel more relaxed? To be less depressed and more happy? To end discomfort and tension?
On January 5th, a German billionaire, Adolf Merckle, threw himself under a train and successfully committed suicide. "I am sorry," said the note he left behind for his wife. In 2007, Mr. Merckle was No. 44 on the Forbes list of the world's wealthiest people.
On sunny days he rode his ancient bicycle to work, and when it rained he drove his VW Rabbit. He employed about 100,000 people, supported a Leukemia charity, he collected supermarket stamps, and returned empty bottles for the deposit.
I am sure a lot of billionaire wannabes dream of returning their empty water bottles to the grocery store for a nickel each, once they get rich. Get-rich-quick aspirants can't wait to enjoy their daily commute to work on their rusty bicycles. And when they get home after a 16-hour work day, they are checking their local rag for coupons.
Hey, I am not making this up! This was the REALITY of a 74 year old billionaire until last week. It differs a bit from what those who haven't made it yet expect from the typical billionaire life style, doesn't it? And then, there is something else that separates insipid money dreams from the facts:
There is no sum of money large enough to protect you from yourself!
One dead billionaire should be sufficient proof for you that money will never buy you out of feeling sorry for yourself. Tension, problems, the emotional roller-coaster we all know too well--all these experiences and challenges may very well be related to monetary issues, but we cannot solve them by throwing enough dollars at our problems. We can't.
Financial salvation is a childish dream. The sooner we realize that, the easier it is to make money and to enjoy it for what it is. Currency is useful to purchase goods and services with. That's it. It cannot fulfill dreams. Cash is a bad pacifier and money is certainly a cruel people-pleaser.
Adolf Merckle was a wussy. He was not a billionaire I have respect for. Adolf M. was the same type of shit weasel like those who wait for more money to end their "unbearable" situation, so that they can enter "financial independence.". Five bucks an hour or $40 billion dollars of annual revenue. What's the damn difference if you can't stomach the tension that comes with life, naturally?
You know, there are billionaire dorks. And for each dorky billionaire, there are millions of dorks eager to get there as well. That's great and I am thrilled you are not one of those people! It is helpful and clarifying, though, to see it from time to time.
Once more: I am not making fun of or writing against having oodles of money. On the contrary, money is fine ... as long as you don't lose yourself in it or die for its cause.
Do what you want, baby, even if you hate it!
Egbert Sukop
P.S.: Oh, and buy my damn book 'How to Better Hate Your Job.' I promise, I'll be glad you did!
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
question and answer: 'slaves'
A reader asked me, "So, Mr. Sukop, you say that people hate their jobs and are slaves to the system, what exactly do you suggest they do in this down-turned economy?"
Firstly, I did NOT say that employees 'are slaves to the system.' Modern wage slavery is voluntary, and those who spend good portions of their lives with activities they despise are slaves to their own perceived lack of options. There is no 'system,' no conspiracy, that deviously demands submission from those who want to make a living.
Employees, unhappy with their status quo, settled for long term misery before our current economical challenges became obvious, and they will do the same during and after. I don't have the right answers for my own life, and I certainly cannot tell anybody else what they should or should not do.
With one exception: if you choose employment, you better make damn sure you are happy with your choice. You owe it to yourself to enjoy what you do, the parts you like AND the annoying details.
If you happen to be employed and employment is not your first choice, then establish a business parallel to your hopefully temporary employment. Enjoy the freedom of trial and error under the umbrella of relative job safety and its benefits.
It doesn't matter whether you start trading goods, manufacturing gizmos, or if you offer a service: when you ask 'what exactly do you suggest they do,' I have one definite answer. You must get used to the idea of SELLING the goods or services you choose to deal with, FOR MONEY. If you don't want to do that, it doesn't matter what you do. If you are indeed willing to do that, it also hardly matters what exactly you choose to do.
Unless you are motivated by immense pressure, don't quit your hated job until you know what alternative HAS PROVEN to work for you financially.
Egbert Sukop
P.S.: Have you bought my book yet? It's about time you do: 'How to Better Hate Your Job.'
Firstly, I did NOT say that employees 'are slaves to the system.' Modern wage slavery is voluntary, and those who spend good portions of their lives with activities they despise are slaves to their own perceived lack of options. There is no 'system,' no conspiracy, that deviously demands submission from those who want to make a living.
Employees, unhappy with their status quo, settled for long term misery before our current economical challenges became obvious, and they will do the same during and after. I don't have the right answers for my own life, and I certainly cannot tell anybody else what they should or should not do.
With one exception: if you choose employment, you better make damn sure you are happy with your choice. You owe it to yourself to enjoy what you do, the parts you like AND the annoying details.
If you happen to be employed and employment is not your first choice, then establish a business parallel to your hopefully temporary employment. Enjoy the freedom of trial and error under the umbrella of relative job safety and its benefits.
It doesn't matter whether you start trading goods, manufacturing gizmos, or if you offer a service: when you ask 'what exactly do you suggest they do,' I have one definite answer. You must get used to the idea of SELLING the goods or services you choose to deal with, FOR MONEY. If you don't want to do that, it doesn't matter what you do. If you are indeed willing to do that, it also hardly matters what exactly you choose to do.
Unless you are motivated by immense pressure, don't quit your hated job until you know what alternative HAS PROVEN to work for you financially.
Egbert Sukop
P.S.: Have you bought my book yet? It's about time you do: 'How to Better Hate Your Job.'
Sunday, January 4, 2009
parrot job
Questions for you:
Do you wish to get yelled at? Are you eager to work for a crooked employer whose standards of integrity are a couple of notches below yours? Is it fun for you to defend flawed products? Will it be entertaining for you to upset people all day, every day? Do you enjoy feeling sorry, for yourself and for those who yell at you? Can boredom provide you with a better sense of fulfillment and meaning than happiness?
If you answered one or more questions with 'Yes,' you should demand from your favored politicians to bring all outsourced slave jobs back into the U.S.. You don't deserve better than to get what you ask for. Perhaps I should explain myself ...
Yesterday I talked to a few extremely friendly Kodak employees who are populating a yell center in India, about a brand new camera that never worked. Koduck's consumer friendly customer policy states that they will try to repair the garbage we buy from them. If their bungleware can't be repaired, they will generously send us a refurbished model, out of the goodness of their hearts. In other words, they never really owe their customers a new camera. With the help of an army of nice and underpaid folks in India, Koduck gets away with giving us crap for scrap, while charging the full retail price.
Everyone I talked to--and their supervisors--appeared to understand my perspective. They would be pissed off as well if they had to accept a used, refurbished item after paying for a new one. All of them expressed how sorry they were and apologized profusely for the messed up company they work for.
As resource for their answers, they seemed to access approximately a hundred vaguely related phrases. The same phrases were randomly repeated in an endless loop. I could still be talking to them and hear the same things, and they would continue to be friendly. Marvelous! One day, all those outsourced jobs will be re-outsourced (outside our species) from India to a special breed of parrots.
I said all this to say: for all of you who still believe in Tom Peters' long debunked excellence myth, some companies outsource their dirtiest jobs because not enough Americans care to guard corporate garbage heaps anymore. Especially not when you get compensated only with an excellent kick in the pants.
Neither do U.S. citizens stand in line to work on gorgeous 140 degree Fahrenheit summer days in Arizona to trim palm trees while breathing dust and cutting up their hands. More or less legal Mexicans are sort of reverse outsourcerers, and they are not here because they are criminals but because there is an economic vacuum they are willing to fill.
The question is not 'How can your job be protected from unChristian Indians or illegal Mexicans?' The real questions: why are you such a masochist that you are willing to mobilize the world to continue your own misery? Why are you too lazy to find something that does not insult your intelligence? You make sure your husband goes to jail if he beats you, but you demand to be abused and exploited on a sorry job for life?
If you feel your job is somehow threatened by your employer who ogles the outsourcing option or who might replace you with a damn immigrant, your job is not obsolete:
You are.
You sure you are taking the proper medication?
It's not about outsourcing or the threat of illegal immigration, and those who fear it or fight it have something wrong with their heads. Are we all going bananas? Mindless journalists pretend to bemoan the loss of jobs. Mindless politicians proudly brag about the creation of jobs. Mindless readers and voters worry about or hope for jobs.
The thought that creeps through my warped mind is that NOT one of the people who decry outsourced jobs would actually want to have one if they were immediately returned and delivered to their doorstep. NOT one of those dillweeds who'd love to call the governmental pest control on all Mexicans would be eager to take over an immigrant's crappy job. The cry for jobs sounds to me like a hypocrite's last yelp.
Jobs.
Media, politicians, and unions freely use the term as if it had a value per se. More is good and less is naturally bad. We want more jobs! Why? Not all jobs are created equal. Government jobs, for example, are not productive. I guess that's why the government is the largest employer in the country. People feel good about not being productive. Making money is evil, while taking money from those who make it is morally superior. Come again?
Anyway, non-governmental jobs are not all productive, but outside the government you can find employees who do create value with their work. You can also find jobs that destroy more value than the most productive job can generate. Ask your banker, how. It's rather idiotic to assume that an unspecified glob of jobs is homogeneous and worth being prayed to and for.
Interesting that job security exists in reverse proportion of a job's productivity. The more profitable you are for your boss, the easier you may find yourself sacked. Um, let's not even go into the corporate fairytale of performance and its deeper lack of meaning.
If 'a job' stands for one and the same thing by definition, what might that be? I have thought long and hard about that issue for the last three minutes, and the common denominators I came up with are mainly two:
Jobs suck and secondly, those who occupy a job feel underpaid.
Jobs suck: 87% of Americans openly admit hating their jobs. Consider the number of weasels who won't tell and you get dangerously close to 99%. Now, most jobs may not be awful as such. The reprehensible elements are added by a loud, gray, or otherwise unpleasant environment, back stabbing colleagues, mind numbing policies, head banging decisions, commuting, unreasonable customers and yes, blood boiling boredom. And, let's not forget daily stress over seeing one's life slip away. Precious minutes we could use for fun and profit ... even for meaningful things.
Low pay: How many people do you personally know who have complained to you about excessive compensation?
Jobs are voluntarily pursued by people who don't see another option. Similarly, senate majority leader Harry Reid believes America has a voluntary tax system, but I must warn you before you try out Option B. In general, jobs are chosen by those who aren't aware of a different choice, and the dividing line between employment and slavery is damn thin.
Sure, employees may choose where they want to live--unless their company suggests they move--they don't get raped (at least not sexually) or flagellated, and a bunch of human rights apply—including the Right to Work. But, plenty of employees are being told EXACTLY what to say and what not to utter, what to do and what not to do under any circumstances. The major difference between slavery and the world of jobs is (insufficient) monetary compensation.
Today, individuals voluntarily sell themselves into partial and temporary slavery for a wage or a salary. Jobs are the contemporary equivalent of slavery.
And I am having a hell of a difficult time comprehending why more slaves than "owners" move mountains to protect current forms of slavery, and calls for the abolishment of employment would be considered the devil's work.
I am afraid, freedom, individuality, and creativity aren't valued highly by us and by the school teachers' union, as long as we can have a job.
Historically, everything that works has been built on a flawed past, on trial and error. Evolution happens to operate that way. America is a nation of bunglers, of people who are willing to try and fail repeatedly. The alternative to covet a secure job is not to be scared of making mistakes and of making mistakes frequently. Hardly anything is as productive as the willingness to make mistakes and yes, the freedom to even repeat the same mistakes until we get it right.
Scary? Of course it is. But your mistakes can never be as scary and disastrous as mistakes your governments and your employers are making for you and with you.
Egbert Sukop
P.S.: Go in peace and buy my damn book 'How to Better Hate Your Job.'
P.P.S.: Now!
Do you wish to get yelled at? Are you eager to work for a crooked employer whose standards of integrity are a couple of notches below yours? Is it fun for you to defend flawed products? Will it be entertaining for you to upset people all day, every day? Do you enjoy feeling sorry, for yourself and for those who yell at you? Can boredom provide you with a better sense of fulfillment and meaning than happiness?
If you answered one or more questions with 'Yes,' you should demand from your favored politicians to bring all outsourced slave jobs back into the U.S.. You don't deserve better than to get what you ask for. Perhaps I should explain myself ...
Yesterday I talked to a few extremely friendly Kodak employees who are populating a yell center in India, about a brand new camera that never worked. Koduck's consumer friendly customer policy states that they will try to repair the garbage we buy from them. If their bungleware can't be repaired, they will generously send us a refurbished model, out of the goodness of their hearts. In other words, they never really owe their customers a new camera. With the help of an army of nice and underpaid folks in India, Koduck gets away with giving us crap for scrap, while charging the full retail price.
Everyone I talked to--and their supervisors--appeared to understand my perspective. They would be pissed off as well if they had to accept a used, refurbished item after paying for a new one. All of them expressed how sorry they were and apologized profusely for the messed up company they work for.
As resource for their answers, they seemed to access approximately a hundred vaguely related phrases. The same phrases were randomly repeated in an endless loop. I could still be talking to them and hear the same things, and they would continue to be friendly. Marvelous! One day, all those outsourced jobs will be re-outsourced (outside our species) from India to a special breed of parrots.
I said all this to say: for all of you who still believe in Tom Peters' long debunked excellence myth, some companies outsource their dirtiest jobs because not enough Americans care to guard corporate garbage heaps anymore. Especially not when you get compensated only with an excellent kick in the pants.
Neither do U.S. citizens stand in line to work on gorgeous 140 degree Fahrenheit summer days in Arizona to trim palm trees while breathing dust and cutting up their hands. More or less legal Mexicans are sort of reverse outsourcerers, and they are not here because they are criminals but because there is an economic vacuum they are willing to fill.
The question is not 'How can your job be protected from unChristian Indians or illegal Mexicans?' The real questions: why are you such a masochist that you are willing to mobilize the world to continue your own misery? Why are you too lazy to find something that does not insult your intelligence? You make sure your husband goes to jail if he beats you, but you demand to be abused and exploited on a sorry job for life?
If you feel your job is somehow threatened by your employer who ogles the outsourcing option or who might replace you with a damn immigrant, your job is not obsolete:
You are.
You sure you are taking the proper medication?
It's not about outsourcing or the threat of illegal immigration, and those who fear it or fight it have something wrong with their heads. Are we all going bananas? Mindless journalists pretend to bemoan the loss of jobs. Mindless politicians proudly brag about the creation of jobs. Mindless readers and voters worry about or hope for jobs.
The thought that creeps through my warped mind is that NOT one of the people who decry outsourced jobs would actually want to have one if they were immediately returned and delivered to their doorstep. NOT one of those dillweeds who'd love to call the governmental pest control on all Mexicans would be eager to take over an immigrant's crappy job. The cry for jobs sounds to me like a hypocrite's last yelp.
Jobs.
Media, politicians, and unions freely use the term as if it had a value per se. More is good and less is naturally bad. We want more jobs! Why? Not all jobs are created equal. Government jobs, for example, are not productive. I guess that's why the government is the largest employer in the country. People feel good about not being productive. Making money is evil, while taking money from those who make it is morally superior. Come again?
Anyway, non-governmental jobs are not all productive, but outside the government you can find employees who do create value with their work. You can also find jobs that destroy more value than the most productive job can generate. Ask your banker, how. It's rather idiotic to assume that an unspecified glob of jobs is homogeneous and worth being prayed to and for.
Interesting that job security exists in reverse proportion of a job's productivity. The more profitable you are for your boss, the easier you may find yourself sacked. Um, let's not even go into the corporate fairytale of performance and its deeper lack of meaning.
If 'a job' stands for one and the same thing by definition, what might that be? I have thought long and hard about that issue for the last three minutes, and the common denominators I came up with are mainly two:
Jobs suck and secondly, those who occupy a job feel underpaid.
Jobs suck: 87% of Americans openly admit hating their jobs. Consider the number of weasels who won't tell and you get dangerously close to 99%. Now, most jobs may not be awful as such. The reprehensible elements are added by a loud, gray, or otherwise unpleasant environment, back stabbing colleagues, mind numbing policies, head banging decisions, commuting, unreasonable customers and yes, blood boiling boredom. And, let's not forget daily stress over seeing one's life slip away. Precious minutes we could use for fun and profit ... even for meaningful things.
Low pay: How many people do you personally know who have complained to you about excessive compensation?
Jobs are voluntarily pursued by people who don't see another option. Similarly, senate majority leader Harry Reid believes America has a voluntary tax system, but I must warn you before you try out Option B. In general, jobs are chosen by those who aren't aware of a different choice, and the dividing line between employment and slavery is damn thin.
Sure, employees may choose where they want to live--unless their company suggests they move--they don't get raped (at least not sexually) or flagellated, and a bunch of human rights apply—including the Right to Work. But, plenty of employees are being told EXACTLY what to say and what not to utter, what to do and what not to do under any circumstances. The major difference between slavery and the world of jobs is (insufficient) monetary compensation.
Today, individuals voluntarily sell themselves into partial and temporary slavery for a wage or a salary. Jobs are the contemporary equivalent of slavery.
And I am having a hell of a difficult time comprehending why more slaves than "owners" move mountains to protect current forms of slavery, and calls for the abolishment of employment would be considered the devil's work.
I am afraid, freedom, individuality, and creativity aren't valued highly by us and by the school teachers' union, as long as we can have a job.
Historically, everything that works has been built on a flawed past, on trial and error. Evolution happens to operate that way. America is a nation of bunglers, of people who are willing to try and fail repeatedly. The alternative to covet a secure job is not to be scared of making mistakes and of making mistakes frequently. Hardly anything is as productive as the willingness to make mistakes and yes, the freedom to even repeat the same mistakes until we get it right.
Scary? Of course it is. But your mistakes can never be as scary and disastrous as mistakes your governments and your employers are making for you and with you.
Egbert Sukop
P.S.: Go in peace and buy my damn book 'How to Better Hate Your Job.'
P.P.S.: Now!
Monday, December 15, 2008
life after success
The Wall Street Journal started a new series of articles, "The Fallen: The declining fortunes of leading business figures." William H. Miller is one of the featured characters. Mr. Miller spent almost twenty years building a reputation as the era's greatest mutual-fund manager. During the last year he destroyed it.
Bill Miller is not a swindler, like Bernie Madoff, just a business man who made lucky decisions for nearly two decades. We love to call that 'success.' A succession of bad moves during the recent twelve months brought his business to its knees. Bad luck.
We are tempted to ascribe a series of consecutive decisions to business acumen when they turn out to be profitable. Luck would be too insulting a label for such a person's skill and foresight, wouldn't it?
And yet, the same man's inability to keep his success on a steady level or to increase it indefinitely shows that he has never been in control of his destiny. It just looked like that for a relatively long time. Bad luck during the past year proves that his twenty years of profit were to a certain degree subject to luck as well.
Now, I am not a friend of the term luck. People's successes are random, and so are their failures. Our endeavors are subject to probability, and it is incredibly dumb to believe that one of us can master it and find a system to succeed all the time and forever.
It's not in the cards, baby! You cannot control the markets, or why do you think a 160-year-old company like Siemens paid bribes of $1.4 billion between 2001 and 2007 (according to the SEC) to round up clients, or General Motors and Ford combined make less money than you do?
Not even banks can handle the markets and manage money: banksters have destroyed tens of trillions of dollars within the past nine years before they begged you and me--the tax payers--to save their worthless asses from the abyss.
The same reprehensible leeches who expect your children's children to assume financial responsibility for the grandest fraud and recklessness economic history has seen, will doubtlessly call the police when a beggar asks for a nickel at their doorstep. I have a thousand times more respect for the dirtiest beggar than for the bank and investment scumbags who called their old buddy Henry Paulson to keep them afloat.
Yeah, I know. I will stop ranting, but you better realize how utterly SCARED our society--liberals and conservatives alike--truly is of a free market. Economic freedom? God forbid! Capitalism, my arse. The last couple of months have shown that hardly anyone wants a free market or capitalism. People want to be saved, powdered, and pampered. We talk a great deal of freedom. Do YOU want it? Are you sure? That would make you a rather exotic animal nowadays.
I am serious: belief in perpetual control of anything is utter nonsense. Success is temporary, and so is failure. One of the most difficult lesson to understand for someone who has never been wildly successful--or lucky--is the fact that there is life after success. Failure can follow success just as easily as a new success may occur after previous success. Freedom has no guarantees, no safety net, and it will never be reliable.
Success is not the end. It is not likely to last. Success will not end your worries. Success makes for an exciting moment, a great day perhaps, and a fun celebration. But success is not a permanent form of life. "Oh, I will get rich one day and then I'll let my money make more money." Too often I have heard that sentence, and I usually assume some kind of brain damage is its cause. Reality works differently.
Even a so-called breakthrough is an isolated event. There is no "other side." Breakthroughs must be repeated if you want them to "last." Your first breakthrough will be one of many to follow, or it was something else. Roll a die, and the probability to get a six will remain identical with each new attempt. Same with success: after each success, you will start over almost at square one.
Here is the crazy part. Someone who has never tasted success is in a similar position as the person who experienced incredible success yesterday!
We have heard it all: 'Nothing breeds success like success,' for instance. And throughout past decades we have endured hoards of seminar quacks selling us that fire walking, bungee jumping, and other exotic nonsense helps to prepare us for business related fear and risk factors. Because "everything is connected with everything else," supposedly.
And if you walk over glowing coals, you will be able to go through tricky business transactions as well. Rubbish! Good grief, every dork can walk through fire without getting burned: just take your stinky socks off and don't hesitate until you are on the other side. Mental preparation? That's only a sales argument to lure you into the seminar. Not more, not less.
Shock of shocks: not even success prepares you for the next success. You need to bring your keister in the right position for upcoming events, similar to a goalie who needs to get back in position after each catch. Getting in position can increase the probability of success, but it won't be any easier the next time. The success after success demands all of you, and possibly MORE of you than the previous winning experience.
But, what about the techniques we have learned? Writing down goals, time management, or new age inspired pseudo-therapy in the name of corporate productivity? Motivational mood elevators, The Secret, communication training, strategic games, or sales boot camps?
PLACEBO effect, baby!
All theories and techniques that you and I have invested too much time and money into, don't have the slightest influence over your next success. Like a placebo, details of your education may "work" in your favor in spite of their existence. Our minds like to identify reasons for successes as well as for our failures. We deny the fact that life is not as linear as we would like for it to be.
What if success is not a succession of events that you can mentally line up in a row, like ducks? We are indeed free to fail after each success. We may be dead five minutes from now.
Depressing ideas? On the contrary: a person who believes to be the greatest failure the world has ever seen is not further away from future success than someone who believes to be on top of the world this minute!
Both got work to do. They are free to go in the direction of their choice. Neither of the two controls the outcome. Everybody else is in charge and equally free to vote with their pocket books.
And believe me, they will!
Egbert Sukop
P.S.: Have you bought a copy of my book yet? 'How to Better Hate Your Job' is likely to turn your stomach inside out, and maybe it has some positive effects on your future endeavors as well. Who knows?
Bill Miller is not a swindler, like Bernie Madoff, just a business man who made lucky decisions for nearly two decades. We love to call that 'success.' A succession of bad moves during the recent twelve months brought his business to its knees. Bad luck.
We are tempted to ascribe a series of consecutive decisions to business acumen when they turn out to be profitable. Luck would be too insulting a label for such a person's skill and foresight, wouldn't it?
And yet, the same man's inability to keep his success on a steady level or to increase it indefinitely shows that he has never been in control of his destiny. It just looked like that for a relatively long time. Bad luck during the past year proves that his twenty years of profit were to a certain degree subject to luck as well.
Now, I am not a friend of the term luck. People's successes are random, and so are their failures. Our endeavors are subject to probability, and it is incredibly dumb to believe that one of us can master it and find a system to succeed all the time and forever.
It's not in the cards, baby! You cannot control the markets, or why do you think a 160-year-old company like Siemens paid bribes of $1.4 billion between 2001 and 2007 (according to the SEC) to round up clients, or General Motors and Ford combined make less money than you do?
Not even banks can handle the markets and manage money: banksters have destroyed tens of trillions of dollars within the past nine years before they begged you and me--the tax payers--to save their worthless asses from the abyss.
The same reprehensible leeches who expect your children's children to assume financial responsibility for the grandest fraud and recklessness economic history has seen, will doubtlessly call the police when a beggar asks for a nickel at their doorstep. I have a thousand times more respect for the dirtiest beggar than for the bank and investment scumbags who called their old buddy Henry Paulson to keep them afloat.
Yeah, I know. I will stop ranting, but you better realize how utterly SCARED our society--liberals and conservatives alike--truly is of a free market. Economic freedom? God forbid! Capitalism, my arse. The last couple of months have shown that hardly anyone wants a free market or capitalism. People want to be saved, powdered, and pampered. We talk a great deal of freedom. Do YOU want it? Are you sure? That would make you a rather exotic animal nowadays.
I am serious: belief in perpetual control of anything is utter nonsense. Success is temporary, and so is failure. One of the most difficult lesson to understand for someone who has never been wildly successful--or lucky--is the fact that there is life after success. Failure can follow success just as easily as a new success may occur after previous success. Freedom has no guarantees, no safety net, and it will never be reliable.
Success is not the end. It is not likely to last. Success will not end your worries. Success makes for an exciting moment, a great day perhaps, and a fun celebration. But success is not a permanent form of life. "Oh, I will get rich one day and then I'll let my money make more money." Too often I have heard that sentence, and I usually assume some kind of brain damage is its cause. Reality works differently.
Even a so-called breakthrough is an isolated event. There is no "other side." Breakthroughs must be repeated if you want them to "last." Your first breakthrough will be one of many to follow, or it was something else. Roll a die, and the probability to get a six will remain identical with each new attempt. Same with success: after each success, you will start over almost at square one.
Here is the crazy part. Someone who has never tasted success is in a similar position as the person who experienced incredible success yesterday!
We have heard it all: 'Nothing breeds success like success,' for instance. And throughout past decades we have endured hoards of seminar quacks selling us that fire walking, bungee jumping, and other exotic nonsense helps to prepare us for business related fear and risk factors. Because "everything is connected with everything else," supposedly.
And if you walk over glowing coals, you will be able to go through tricky business transactions as well. Rubbish! Good grief, every dork can walk through fire without getting burned: just take your stinky socks off and don't hesitate until you are on the other side. Mental preparation? That's only a sales argument to lure you into the seminar. Not more, not less.
Shock of shocks: not even success prepares you for the next success. You need to bring your keister in the right position for upcoming events, similar to a goalie who needs to get back in position after each catch. Getting in position can increase the probability of success, but it won't be any easier the next time. The success after success demands all of you, and possibly MORE of you than the previous winning experience.
But, what about the techniques we have learned? Writing down goals, time management, or new age inspired pseudo-therapy in the name of corporate productivity? Motivational mood elevators, The Secret, communication training, strategic games, or sales boot camps?
PLACEBO effect, baby!
All theories and techniques that you and I have invested too much time and money into, don't have the slightest influence over your next success. Like a placebo, details of your education may "work" in your favor in spite of their existence. Our minds like to identify reasons for successes as well as for our failures. We deny the fact that life is not as linear as we would like for it to be.
What if success is not a succession of events that you can mentally line up in a row, like ducks? We are indeed free to fail after each success. We may be dead five minutes from now.
Depressing ideas? On the contrary: a person who believes to be the greatest failure the world has ever seen is not further away from future success than someone who believes to be on top of the world this minute!
Both got work to do. They are free to go in the direction of their choice. Neither of the two controls the outcome. Everybody else is in charge and equally free to vote with their pocket books.
And believe me, they will!
Egbert Sukop
P.S.: Have you bought a copy of my book yet? 'How to Better Hate Your Job' is likely to turn your stomach inside out, and maybe it has some positive effects on your future endeavors as well. Who knows?
Sunday, December 7, 2008
hope and love
Holy cows!
That's what hope and love are, holy cows begging to meet a cruel butcher. A German friend of mine recently subjected me to a lengthy lecture to show me his utter contempt for my crude opinion that hope and love are not only useless in many instances, but outright dangerous. My friend is a sweetheart of a man, but I still refuse to trust love and hope blindly. It is more relaxing to trust the intentions of someone who hates me.
No, I am not talking about your messed up love life: you will have to sort that one out all by yourself, if you can. But even there, love may be in the way of excessive enjoyment. You can tell, moderation is a four-letter-word in my vocabulary.
Think stocks. You own shares of a particular company, and your love for that company overrides your exit strategy. You are holding on to those shares all the thorny way down, instead of pushing the 'Eject' button with a cool head. Emotional attachment is a hindrance to making--or keeping--money when the market signals you to hit 'Sell.'
Remember the fatal relationship Enron employees had with their Enron shares? The financial mob blamed Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling--and rightfully so--but that did not repay the devastating losses suffered by employees and investors. We don't learn anything by blaming people. Usually we don't recover our monetary losses by taking responsibility either, but realizing our responsibility permits us to actively rejoin the game and the markets. Assuming responsibility provides us with the only chance to participate in the future.
Do you know the most painful forms of responsibility? Being responsible for screwing up is easy. Making a dumb mistake may not be our favorite thing to admit, but we have learned to manage it. The mistake of trusting too much, however, of dogged loyalty, or the realization how 'the power of love' in our peaceful hands can lead to (self)-annihilation is of a different quality. Taking responsibility for doing the right thing at the wrong time can easily shatter our belief in ourselves for a couple of years or decades.
We prefer to swallow some strong substances before we are willing to face the sobering fact that everything we collectively consider as good, may turn into an evil force the next time we touch it. Good natured German folks had to learn that devoted love for their country included the modus operandi for killing tens of millions of individuals and to burn extended parts of the world to the ground.
Good God, how could I get so distracted?!
Anyway, I am confident you understand the idea that your undying love for the shares of a publicly traded company can prove to be a bitter pill that your wallet refuses to swallow joyfully. U.S. Steel used to be synonymous with corporate success, but their steel production today is hardly above their output from 1902. I doubt U.S. Steel executives, their board of directors, and their investors expected a century of stagnation 100 years ago. They expected aggressive growth. But blue chip stocks don't come with the guarantee to remain blue chips.
"If you play enough, accept that from time to time you are going to go bust, because from time to time, everyone, even the best of the best, does. Every professional eventually is faced with having to hardnose the highway." --Doc Holliday, as quoted in Bruce Old's 'Bucking the Tiger'
The professional investor knows that love for a company is costly, sooner or later, and the dumbest thing you can do. And when the love for a stock turns into loss? Yeah, what happens? Right: dear old hope kicks in. Hope, that the market will turn around and your losses will be recovered. Need I mention tulip mania in the 17th century? The tech bubble of the nineties, or the unbelievable banking fraud--fraud is the true name for it, is it not?--that is currently destroying literally trillions of investors' and tax payers' dollars? Yes, hope and pray, and it will all be good really soon.
Now, if it can be a bad move to love a company whose shares you happen to own temporarily, can it not be equally dangerous to love a company you have founded and built yourself?
That depends.
We desire "to do what we love to do." That's awfully sweet! But I am afraid, love for the stuff you do will cut into your profits as well as into your happiness. I am just playing advocatus diaboli once again, and I don't really mean what I say? Wrong! I am serious.
As an example, assume a person who is establishing a business based on one particular product idea she has fallen in love with. It will fail on the marketplace entirely, it will lead to mediocre sales, or it will turn into a roaring success. You tell me, what is the probability for either of these three simplified options?
Exactly. And in the probable case of her beloved product ailing or failing, she will throw good money after bad in the "hope" that it will get better eventually. God, that is so painful to watch! The theory that you should do what you love is the most crappy leftover of the disgustingly pitiful baby boomer generation. It's like Deepak Chopra and Janis Joplin having a baby, or Oprah Winfrey and John Lennon, the most loved fascist of the flower power movement (when everybody agrees with me, there will be peace; brilliant!). Same thing.
Apropos, one thing the poverty versus prosperity thinkers of the 1970s and 80s promoted was abundance. Remember? That is not completely useless if you apply abundance to your ideas and activities. One idea or pet project is likely to fail. A bunch of practically realized ideas are more likely to include a winner. Introduce new products or services to the markets continually, and probability is on your side: at some point it is likely to work for you financially, if you live long enough or cough up new stuff quickly and frequently enough.
You cannot control which one of your products will make money or lose. Falling in love with one of your brain children is threatening your well-being and the likelihood to discover what works for you. Your emotional attachment to that one bloody sacred thing you want to do means almost certain financial doom, followed by hope that will cause you to survive until you are destroyed for good.
Doing what we love or not is not the issue. It's ultimately meaningless. Do whatever you do--no matter whether you love or hate the activity, the project, the product--with excessive attention, the utmost skill you can muster and hell, with your damn love if you must.
That will lead to a steady level of satisfaction you will never reach with addictive dependency on doing only what you love to do. Hope and love work against the ecstasy you expect to gain from them. Screw your imbecilic idea of doing what you love.
Instead, love what you hate to do.
Egbert Sukop
P.S.: Have you purchased my book yet? 'How to Better Hate Your Job.' Grrr ... what are you hoping for? Better times, perhaps?
That's what hope and love are, holy cows begging to meet a cruel butcher. A German friend of mine recently subjected me to a lengthy lecture to show me his utter contempt for my crude opinion that hope and love are not only useless in many instances, but outright dangerous. My friend is a sweetheart of a man, but I still refuse to trust love and hope blindly. It is more relaxing to trust the intentions of someone who hates me.
No, I am not talking about your messed up love life: you will have to sort that one out all by yourself, if you can. But even there, love may be in the way of excessive enjoyment. You can tell, moderation is a four-letter-word in my vocabulary.
Think stocks. You own shares of a particular company, and your love for that company overrides your exit strategy. You are holding on to those shares all the thorny way down, instead of pushing the 'Eject' button with a cool head. Emotional attachment is a hindrance to making--or keeping--money when the market signals you to hit 'Sell.'
Remember the fatal relationship Enron employees had with their Enron shares? The financial mob blamed Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling--and rightfully so--but that did not repay the devastating losses suffered by employees and investors. We don't learn anything by blaming people. Usually we don't recover our monetary losses by taking responsibility either, but realizing our responsibility permits us to actively rejoin the game and the markets. Assuming responsibility provides us with the only chance to participate in the future.
Do you know the most painful forms of responsibility? Being responsible for screwing up is easy. Making a dumb mistake may not be our favorite thing to admit, but we have learned to manage it. The mistake of trusting too much, however, of dogged loyalty, or the realization how 'the power of love' in our peaceful hands can lead to (self)-annihilation is of a different quality. Taking responsibility for doing the right thing at the wrong time can easily shatter our belief in ourselves for a couple of years or decades.
We prefer to swallow some strong substances before we are willing to face the sobering fact that everything we collectively consider as good, may turn into an evil force the next time we touch it. Good natured German folks had to learn that devoted love for their country included the modus operandi for killing tens of millions of individuals and to burn extended parts of the world to the ground.
Good God, how could I get so distracted?!
Anyway, I am confident you understand the idea that your undying love for the shares of a publicly traded company can prove to be a bitter pill that your wallet refuses to swallow joyfully. U.S. Steel used to be synonymous with corporate success, but their steel production today is hardly above their output from 1902. I doubt U.S. Steel executives, their board of directors, and their investors expected a century of stagnation 100 years ago. They expected aggressive growth. But blue chip stocks don't come with the guarantee to remain blue chips.
"If you play enough, accept that from time to time you are going to go bust, because from time to time, everyone, even the best of the best, does. Every professional eventually is faced with having to hardnose the highway." --Doc Holliday, as quoted in Bruce Old's 'Bucking the Tiger'
The professional investor knows that love for a company is costly, sooner or later, and the dumbest thing you can do. And when the love for a stock turns into loss? Yeah, what happens? Right: dear old hope kicks in. Hope, that the market will turn around and your losses will be recovered. Need I mention tulip mania in the 17th century? The tech bubble of the nineties, or the unbelievable banking fraud--fraud is the true name for it, is it not?--that is currently destroying literally trillions of investors' and tax payers' dollars? Yes, hope and pray, and it will all be good really soon.
Now, if it can be a bad move to love a company whose shares you happen to own temporarily, can it not be equally dangerous to love a company you have founded and built yourself?
That depends.
We desire "to do what we love to do." That's awfully sweet! But I am afraid, love for the stuff you do will cut into your profits as well as into your happiness. I am just playing advocatus diaboli once again, and I don't really mean what I say? Wrong! I am serious.
As an example, assume a person who is establishing a business based on one particular product idea she has fallen in love with. It will fail on the marketplace entirely, it will lead to mediocre sales, or it will turn into a roaring success. You tell me, what is the probability for either of these three simplified options?
Exactly. And in the probable case of her beloved product ailing or failing, she will throw good money after bad in the "hope" that it will get better eventually. God, that is so painful to watch! The theory that you should do what you love is the most crappy leftover of the disgustingly pitiful baby boomer generation. It's like Deepak Chopra and Janis Joplin having a baby, or Oprah Winfrey and John Lennon, the most loved fascist of the flower power movement (when everybody agrees with me, there will be peace; brilliant!). Same thing.
Apropos, one thing the poverty versus prosperity thinkers of the 1970s and 80s promoted was abundance. Remember? That is not completely useless if you apply abundance to your ideas and activities. One idea or pet project is likely to fail. A bunch of practically realized ideas are more likely to include a winner. Introduce new products or services to the markets continually, and probability is on your side: at some point it is likely to work for you financially, if you live long enough or cough up new stuff quickly and frequently enough.
You cannot control which one of your products will make money or lose. Falling in love with one of your brain children is threatening your well-being and the likelihood to discover what works for you. Your emotional attachment to that one bloody sacred thing you want to do means almost certain financial doom, followed by hope that will cause you to survive until you are destroyed for good.
Doing what we love or not is not the issue. It's ultimately meaningless. Do whatever you do--no matter whether you love or hate the activity, the project, the product--with excessive attention, the utmost skill you can muster and hell, with your damn love if you must.
That will lead to a steady level of satisfaction you will never reach with addictive dependency on doing only what you love to do. Hope and love work against the ecstasy you expect to gain from them. Screw your imbecilic idea of doing what you love.
Instead, love what you hate to do.
Egbert Sukop
P.S.: Have you purchased my book yet? 'How to Better Hate Your Job.' Grrr ... what are you hoping for? Better times, perhaps?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)