The Frustrated CFO

The Struggle Is Real for Employers As Millennials Enter the Workforce with Their Own Value System

Like many hiring execs, I still have an employer account with Monster.com, even though the time when they dominated the job-hunting market has passed.  Nowadays, they are not even at the top of the industry leaders list.  Still, we got used to them in the 17 years they've been around.  And they do try their best to provide the paying clients with value-added bells and whistles beyond the standard ad posting:  resume matching, database searching, description writing, HR Resource Center, and whatnot.  

One of these add-ons is the email service that blasts recruitment articles to all registered users.  I usually ignore these emails, but the last one had an article with an enticing title The Real Reason Millennials are Leaving Your Company.  

The first thing that caught my eye was the singular "Reason."  I thought, "The author was able to identify a single, most fundamental cause of what appears to be a case of chronic pins and needles in the millennial butts?  That's remarkable!"

I got even more curious reading the logline.  It talked about an abundance of options, "a plethora of jobs" that allow millennials to be "super selective" in their career choices.  Moreover, it promised expert advice to employers on how to keep the "valuable millennials" in the work seats.  I was like: This must be one of those sci-fi imagine-if humorous thingies, because these statements, if not drenched in undiluted sarcasm, can only refer to some remote planet in an unknown universe.  Here on Earth, right now, most of the millennials you and I know are either unemployed, or work jobs that have nothing to do with their chosen professions (let alone vocations), or stretch their schooling to avoid facing the bleakness of the job market.  I mean, there are premium cable shows and broadcast sitcoms about it.   

And, "valuable millennials?"  Yes, they exist, in small numbers and tiny clusters, and you ought to be very lucky to have them around.  But generally speaking: the state of our arts and entertainment is a testimony of young people's value and their values.  And when it comes to hiring, you need to go through 800 entry-level resumes to find 3 candidates who can write a coherent sentence, even though (I'm talking to you, senator Sanders!), all of the applicants have college degrees.     

Opening the article immediately dispelled all enthusiasm.  Firstly, no pinnacle reasoning was crystallized.  The piece was divided into subsections addressing different causes for millennials' job mobility.  Since the author is not a Canadian afflicted by the national inability to pluralize words, I can only attribute the use of the single form in the title to writing and editing sloppiness.  And, of course, there was not a single whiff of alien or any other humor.

In fact, the self-branded Talent Maximizer® Roberta Matuson, who wrote the article, takes herself and her "advisory" role very seriously.  In complete solemnity she lists the following as the reasons why the millennials don't want to hold on to their jobs (with my commentaries):

• Millennials want to work for companies that help to improve society.  Ms. Matuson suggests that those employers who want to retain Millennial workers should "take a closer look at the organizational purpose," assess how the company's mission impacts society, and redefine its purpose.

To paraphrase Woody Allen, "What's wrong with this?  Everything!" 

First of all, what does the lame formula "improved society" mean?  What's a "better society" for one person, is hell for another.  The massive support of Bernie Sanders by young voters clearly shows that they want to live in a welfare state.  I, on the other hand, have been preaching no government interference and market economy my whole life.  I would understand if the focus was more specific - let's say on environmental issues.  If employees of different ages boycotted the fracking industry, for example, our society would seriously benefit in the long run.  But I doubt we are talking about future impact here.  I'm pretty sure that if the fracking industry started providing free daily lunches to local people, the millennials would think of them as employers with a positive mission!  Never mind the explosions and the fiery faucets.

And what happened to the old-fashioned purpose of being profitable, staying in business, and continuously providing jobs?  It's not good enough?  Do all millennials want to work for non-profits spending grants, or public companies depleting investors' pension and college funds?

• Millennials need constant external motivation: nurture, praise, repeat.  A shout-out here, a lunch with a boss there, or an invite to an off-site event, Ms. Matuson suggests, will help to demonstrate that the employers care.  Otherwise, the millennials will leave, because "the recession is over."  

Well, this is not the first time I am confronted with the suggestion that what I call "hugging motivation" is more important to younger people than fairness, objectivity, professional growth, adequate compensation, etc.  Don't get me wrong, the acknowledgement of one's achievement is incredibly important, but only if it's deserved.   Constantly patting on the back some unimpressive, low-value jackass out of fear that they will leave - that would be a betrayal of my work ethics and a violation of my fiduciary duty as a CFO.  Merit-based rewards, people!  That's what made America great in the first place and that's what will bring the greatness back! 

And here she goes again with the sci-fi twist: the recession is over!  Where?  In Alpha Centauri?  Oh, wait - on the front page of The Wall Street Journal and in government reports.   In real life, we are in the permanently recessive stage of economic decline with no prospects for upward turn.  This slow sliding may feel to the uninitiated as a flat plateau, but just you wait - we are bound to experience some dramatic crashes as well.

• (Brace yourself for this one, cause contrary to the previous statement:) Compensation is important to millennials, especially if they have student loans.  "If you don't pay the millennial whatever he or she thinks they are worth," they will leave.

So, no matter how much you praise them, and hug them, and take them to lunch, the old-school paycheck still matters! Except there is nothing old-school about it either.  Back in the day, wages were determined by clear and tangible factors: the sophistication of the job, the level of expertise, the scarcity of QUALIFIED professionals on the market.  But apparently it doesn't work like that with the generation of people who were born after The Breakfast Club and Back to the Future came out.  The key to their adequate compensation is their own self-worth.  We must pay them whatever they think we must pay them.  And don't forget, the employers need to account for the student loans!  Essentially the implication is that we have to pay them what they NEED and not what they earn.  "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" maybe sounds right to Sanders's supporters, but it is not the principle that lies in the American foundation.  You know whose principle that is?  Marxists-communists!

• Millennials require work-life balance.  

Just the millennials?  Is that what the article's author actually believes?  That millennials should be treated preferentially when it comes to working hours, paid time-off, etc.?  That there should be two different HR policies in every company, one for millennials and another for the rest of us chickens?  That's age-based discrimination, isn't it?   

I've always believed in the importance of work-life balance and regularly wrestle with the owners to ensure that every employee has access to the same set of benefits and perks.  And what my experience shows is that the millennials take the full advantage of these packages like no one else; sometimes to the point of abuse.  90% run out of the office the minute the clock strikes the official end time, no matter what's happening with the work.  Many don't even spare a few seconds to shut down their computers (yet all of them fancy themselves "environmentalists").  Just last year, I had a millennial employee who was out for 15 working days in the 5 months I tolerated her bullshit.  I've never had to deal with that kind of attitude before the millennials entered the workforce.         

The truth is that you don't need to be an HR expert to formulate your ideas about the reasons behind the millennials' prevalent job discontent.  Any experienced manager with a keen eye and some human insight can draw up a comprehensive list.  And here is mine (in no particular order):

1.  Many millennials, especially liberal arts majors, have a hard time defining their purpose and developing a sense of belonging at a job.  This is primarily because they go to college to learn... nothing.  I'm not even talking about slacking and partying.  There are so many narrow-niche bullshit "liberal arts" degrees out there, most bachelor graduates acquire no practical knowledge.  And it makes thinking of a career path very difficult.
2. Much scarier, they are not equipped with any basic learning skills.  They can neither study on their own, nor operate with minimal supervision.  Not able to absorb new knowledge, they feel like failures and will eventually leave for an "easier" job.
3. Turns out that the damned phone is a millennial Achilles heel.  The millennials are so used to texting, tweeting, and posting, 85% of them are afraid of talking on the phone.  When confronted with a job that entails constant voice-to-voice interactions, which are a plenty,  they opt to quit.
4. Aside from athletes and health freaks, young people nowadays live incredibly passive lives.  Some people say that the abundance of streaming content is to blame, but we all know that way before YouTube (2005) and  Netflix's streaming (2008), young people were already glued to their computers and game consoles.  Thus, they suffer terribly on the jobs that require them to be out of the office most of the time - selling, pitching, servicing, etc.  According to some HR professionals, this is one of the millennials' biggest complains.    
5. The bulk of this generation grew up with no discipline or structure, both at home and at school.  While being a non-conformist is an invaluable quality when it comes to independent thinking and artistic expression, in a survival-driven business environment the lack of self-control, inability to follow rules of conduct, and disregard for subordination can make one's life pretty unbearable. 
6. They want to be hugged and cuddled all the time.  Many of them crumble under pressure and cannot deal with reprimands.
7. I know it sounds like a cliche at this point, but it is true - they do want trophies just for showing up, because that's what they are used to.  As a result, they develop a clinical deficiency of self-motivation for achieving merit-based recognition.  They shy away from competitive environments where hard work and achievement translates into tangible rewards of raises, bonuses, and promotions.
8. Celebrity-saturated social media made the majority of millennials into unsettled zombies who are preoccupied with fantasies of becoming instantaneously rich and famous.  I guarantee that the star-struck ones will continue moving from one job to another, feeling extremely discontent.   
9. The majority of the millennials are not prepared to be self-reliant.  The livelihood of many a chronic quitter usually doesn't depend on their own paychecks; they expect to be continuously supported by their parents.  
10. And some young people, just like in every generation before them, are restless because they want to be adventurers; they are afraid that Life will pass them by.  The boring job can wait; while they pursue their dreams.  And, of course, sadly, most of them are confused, and don't know what they want, and don't have any ideas, or talents, or clues.  But let me tell you: that is the only good reason to quit your job (assuming you can afford it).  All the others are just weaknesses and incompetence.           

 

Donald Trump v. Hillary Clinton's Foreign Supporters

I am not an ophthalmologist.  So, I cannot explain why people can't see for themselves.  Nor am I interested enough in so-called human factors to start analyzing what makes people so confused.  But I am a career financial executive with multiple academic degrees and 30 years experience in international business relations.  As such, I can shine some light onto the monetary lining of certain political matters.  (And yes, it's always about money!)    

We are several months away from 2016 presidential face-off and the outcome of the Republican primary is still uncertain, but Hillary has already started her anti-Trump balls rolling.  In March, she and another former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright (he-Clinton's appointee), declared that U.S. allies abroad are "definitely worried" about the idea of Trump's potential presidency.

Here I feel obligated to remind the readers that Madeleine Albright keeps repeating on record that “there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other,” thus forcing upon you the idea of vagina sisterhood as the highest priority for women - more important than our survival, well-being, principles, and ideals.  This is just to underscore the speakers' vantage point.  But you've got to love the ambiguity of their statement worthy of true foreign-affairs foxes: Which allies are they talking about?  All of them or just a few?  A couple, or twenty, or none?  

In the absence of clarity, we can only speculate, but I sure hope they are all worried.  Because, unlike all those professional politicians in the running,  Donald J. Trump is not going to play nice and be concerned about our allies' opinions of him personally or of America's policies.  For Donald J. Trump, American interests come first.  And it's about time for someone to care more about us than about all the beneficiaries of IMF, the World Bank, WHO, UN (with all its agencies, funds, and sub-funds), NATO, and any other foreign support system that gets most of its financing from our personal pockets via career global manipulators in Washington, D.C.       

And let me tell you something about those possibly "worried" nations: Their governments may officially declare themselves US allies and they may act as friends of Hillary's, but people there hate Americans.  Let me repeat that: they hate us with passion.  Many writers, journalists, filmmakers, historians, social and political analysts, here and overseas, have touched on the issue of global anti-Americanism.  Most of them, including our own liberals, explain and justify even the most unfair hostility towards us by entire nations and groups.  A logical person should not even bother with all that emotional theoreticism.  All you need is to cross the border.  

Anyone who traveled abroad (even as close as Canada, let alone Europe and further) and actually interacted with random people - not polite business partners in their office environments or paid service providers on the beaten paths, but with people on the streets, in cafes, in bars - can tell you about their personal interface with unabashed anti-Americanism: the way people look at you, the things people mutter under their breath, small bits that slip out in conversations, and even open hostility.  Let alone the burning of an American flag I've witnessed on Trafalgar Square the last time I was going to the National Gallery in London.  The truth is, you don't even have to go outside of NYC: half of the taxi drivers here have BBC UK stations on.  Oh my God!  The shit that pours out of those radios!   

Why do they hate us, though?  A lot of official data sources (BBC LOVES those Americanophobia polls) concentrate on "US cultural influence," such as it is.  However, that would be the easiest thing to resolve, actually:  if you don't like American stuff, stop going to McDonald's and your movie theaters - if there is no demand, there will be no supply and no "influence".  But no, the fucking Russia with their 81% of anti-American sentiment (second largest in the world after Jordan) leaves and breathes American cinema and TV.  And China (71%), being the largest movie market in the world, is singlehandedly responsible for all the bombastic crap that comes out of Hollywood nowadays.  So, obviously, the supposed "influence" is not the reason for hatred.

What is, then?  Well, let's sing it together:  It's all about money!  The jealousy!  The primal coveting that the Judeo-Christian canons have been trying so hard to eradicate!  American wealth has always been a sore spot for our "friends" and enemies alike.  And I am not talking about super-rich either.  It's the small things: the fact that so many of us can afford more than our peers overseas; that at each level of income we have bigger houses, more technology, and more food; that many of us can travel to their countries, but they cannot afford to come here; that our gas and coffee is still cheaper; that our cereal boxes and cat-food cans are bigger; that we have dozens of ketchups and mustards in an average supermarket, etc., etc.  It's really primitive: "They've got more and we hate it!"        

Except that the reality is not some two-dimensional surface.  It is constructed on the principle of cause and effect.  There are fundamental reasons why we've got what we've got and they haven't.   And if I had to narrow it down to the most defining one, I'd say that it's all about the interpretation of Equality.  

In many countries our politicians call allies (and some even adore, e.g. Senator Sanders), Equality is misinterpreted as a socialistic notion of public uniformity, with everyone in the same lower middle-range of bare necessities, regardless of their personal merits - gifts, entrepreneurship, ambition, drive.  Whether you are a lousy or an extraordinary worker, your opportunities are "EQUAL," because you granted your government the responsibility for redistribution of wealth.  On the other hand, our Constitution treats Equality in terms of fairness.  It is defined as an opportunity to try your hardest and make the most of your own abilities.  And this difference makes their hatred of us unjustifiable.    

Yes, we keep losing a grip and sliding off our own foundation due to the government's meddling, overpopulation, pervasive nepotism, illegal immigration, useless liberal education, etc.  But the bedrock is there; the shreds of meritocracy can still be detected; and we can still do better than any of our foreign allies.  So, why would we care about them?  

Trump obviously doesn't, but Hillary, on the other hand, must care!  Why?  Yet again, money.  She needs them and she works hard to get them wherever she can.  Just in the past few months Clinton has held 13 foreign fundraisers, including in London, Durban (South Africa), Munich, and Mexico City.  Yes, the capital of Mexico, which illegally exports their devastated citizens through the US border.  Apparently, it is much cheaper for Mexico to pay off Democratic presidential candidates than to create jobs.  Hmm, that's a thought!  I wonder who we can bribe to get rid of hipsters?

But seriously, who do I trust more?  Someone who is 100% financially and ideologically independent and is hell-bent on making our country prosperous again?  Or someone on the take from pretty much everyone and with the greatest concern for her own political status?  For me the answer is obvious.  But then again, unlike most of Hillary's supporters, I'm not the kind of person who would base her political allegiance purely on gender either.  Yes, I'm all about "girl power," but I am not biased in any way!  It appears that Ms. Clinton and I have the same physical attributes in the same places.  But so what?  The body parts is not how I evaluate humans.  What's in her mind, in her heart, and in her soul is far more important to me, and it doesn't seem that we have too much in common in those departments.

Well, as long as we are on the topic of feminism, let me share the information that really rubs me the wrong way:  It is a matter of public record that Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has accepted money from King of Saudi Arabia (at least $10 million); King of Morocco ($1 million), and King of Oman ($1 million).  How about these feminist countries where, at the very least, women must hide their hair under a scarf?  Do I need to remind my readers that it is illegal for women to drive in Saudi Arabia?  Are all those vagina sisters of Hillary okay with this?

Coincidentally, the other day one of my attorneys was trying to convince me that you cannot blame fundraisers for unscrupulously raising funds wherever they can.  Just because Hillary takes money from whoever, he said, it doesn't mean that she will reciprocate with any favors.  This lawyer, being a Philadelphia man himself, was using Bill Cosby's example to illustrate his argument.  Why should Temple University, for example, even consider returning the money donated to them by the legally entangled comedian?  The money was given in good faith and there are no strings attached, he asserted.

Except, there are strings.  Strings are always attached to money.  Obviously, my attorney friend is being very naive.  Let's follow his example.  If such situation arose, do you think for a second that Temple University would refuse to accept one of Cosby's kids or grandkids as their student, regardless of their GPA's and SAT scores? It is a well-known fact that parents' donations ($200,000 - $5,000,000) buy kids' ways into exclusive prep schools and Ivy League universities.  And if you think that a valuable donor cannot suggest a grant candidate to the Research Allocation Committee, you don't know how this world works.      

And that's educational institutions - that's all they can give in return for the money.  Imagine what can be requested from the President of the United States! And don't doubt it for a second: when the donors come knocking on the door, Hillary will have no choice but to open it.  Because if you refuse, there will be no more fundraising in the future - not for her, nor for anybody else.  These are not alms, these are advances on political favors with global impact.  That's how the system works.  And she is no Trump.  She is a part of the machine and she will not rise against it.  

But forget all that political bullshit!  This whole issue of Trump-worried allies is far more personal than Hillary's donations.  Let's look inside our wallets, at our bank accounts, retirement funds, our very own economic well being; and with that in mind, ask yourself, America, do you want to be on good terms with some broke-ass foreigners, or do you want to rattle everyone's cage by having once again more personal wealth than your counterparts anywhere in the world?           

Quote of the Week: A Tall Order for Minorities Everywhere

Rowan (Eli) Pope:  How many times did I tell you?!  You have to be what?!

Olivia Pope:  Twice as good as them to get a half of what they have.

                                                                 Scandal, Season 3, Episode 1

The Frustrated CFO's Comment: 

I'm not placing this excerpt into quotation marks.  First of all, it's not an exact citation - on screen it gets all broken up, because the characters interrupt each other with anger, frustration, exasperation, and all other similar feelings; Eli is yelling, and Liv is sort of shudders and attempts to shy away - all those over-the-top dramatics and stuff.  More importantly, though, it's not an original phrase.  Shonda Rhimes, who actually penned this episode herself, is brilliantly entertaining, but she didn't come up with this maxim.  Many African-American journalists, bloggers, and celebrities commented on its wide-spread popularity in their families and communities.  Some even tried to date it - 70s, 50s...

The truth is, however, this concept doesn't belong exclusively to black people of the United States.  In fact, everywhere around the world similar formulas are spoken in different languages to bright and promising children who will have to spend their lives jumping over the barriers raised in front of them for no other reason than their minority status: Kurds in Turkey, Chinese in Indonesia, Hui in China, Indians in Uganda, Rohingyas in Burma, Jews and Gypsies wherever they are, etc., etc., etc.   

Furthermore, the applicability of this mandate goes way beyond race and ethnicity.  The same mantra is adapted as a way of life by every marginalized overachiever even in our blessed land we call "Free Country:" women going into "men's" professions; immigrants with strong accents attempting to climb corporate ladders; members of LGBT community trying to get a job outside of the fashion and the entertainment industries; overweight and deformed individuals applying for any position; young talented people without connections trying to break into especially nepotistic fields - the list is long. 

Growing up a Jewish girl in one of the most anti-Semitic of European countries, I was barred from many professional careers and life opportunities.  And in those that were permissible, someone like me had one chance in a thousand.  My personal slogan was even more maximal: I had to be the best just to get in.  Was I able to completely shake off the disenfranchised complex after nearly three decades in America?  Fat chance!  For starters, I'm a woman...                   

Quote of the Week: "Orange Is the New Black" Checks Off Nepotism on Its List of Life's Wrongs

 

Joe Caputo (Litchfield Penitentiary's Assistant to the Warden):  The fish stinks from the head.  And I'm not the head!  I am actually down by the gills somewhere.  So, once I call the police and US Marshals; and the DOC investigators start sniffing around, it's going to look a lot worse for the 'Director of Human Activity' here at Litchfield!

Danny Pearson (MCC appointed Director of Human Activity):  Whoa!

Caputo:(ironically) Whoa!

Pearson:  Whoa!

Caputo:  Whoa!

Pearson:  Whoa! Yeah...

Caputo:  Whoa, whoa, whoa! Yeah!

Pearson:  Slow down!  Why do we have to involve all those people?

Caputo:  We have an escaped convict!!!

Pearson:  Let's just go get her back!

Caputo:  Who?

Pearson: You and me.  Where did they take her?

Caputo:  The bus station in Utica.

Pearson:  Let's just get into a car.  We'll go get her, bring her back. Yeah!  Nobody has to know.

Caputo:  So, you're saying, the two of us should go and apprehend an escaped convict?  This is not The Fucking Bloodhound Gang!  Okay?

Pearson:  Well, I don't know what to do!  I honestly don't know what the fuck to do!  Do you know how I got this job?  My Dad is one of the SVP's at MCC.

Caputo:  (smirks and nods his head in full comprehension and disgust)

Pearson:  Yeah...  This is going to be worse than when I got kicked out of Ohio University...  I have no idea what I'm doing..

Caputo:  Fine.  I'll go.  On my own.

The Frustrated CFO's Comment:Most shows experience some sort of a slump in the third season - the story exhausts itself, the characters become too familiar, writers run out of surprising ideas.  Not this show, though!  This 3rd season!  It's so good, some critics and viewers rate it higher than the fist two!  There is so much excellent, nuanced stuff!  And this Caputo guy, who got promoted by the producers into a main character - I painfully relate to his plight of never-ending bad decisions.  There are always insults added to his injuries: not only that he gets a new boss, but it's somebody's useless offspring on top of it.  You just know, there is no happy ending for Caputo - he'll never get out of prison.

 

Post Scriptum to Pseudoscience Post: Michael LaCour

A week ago I posted my comments on pseudo-economics  and a couple of days later someone drew my attention to Michael LaCour's mess.

That's right, I am not up to date on my bullshit news!  And if some of you are not either:  Michael LaCour is a political-science PhD aspirant at UCLA.  Last year, he successfully pushed through academic approvals and straight into mass media his research, which "empirically proved" that voters' opinions on gay marriage could be positively shifted based on a single 20-minite conversation with an LGBT person relating his/her story. 

Of course, it was a fake!  Not only the results were falsified, the entire study was a fiction.  As I was trying to explain in the previous post, there is a lot of this shit going on, especially in social sciences.  Surprisingly, it got exposed as a fraud within just one year!      

Oh, my!  What a case in point!  Or rather a case in multiple points I've been addressing from time to time.  Here are a few:

Point 1.  Nowadays, you can literally fake anything - data, documents, careers, personae and personalities, talents, beauty, courage, loyalty, honesty, news, finances, science, art, national histories, even entire lives, as long as you wrap it in an impressive package and  your lies hit the right spot in the target audience. The gullible, superficial, ignorant, and plain stupid majority of contemporary humans make terrifically fertile soil for all kind of schemers and fakers to sow their poisonous seeds.  What used to be a crime of skillful con artists and corrupt governments has become a way of life for quite a few people; many of them very successful and well known.        

Point 2.  Nobody is doing their job and/or paying attention.  It is impossible to count how many times I brought up this issue, both in writing and in conversations.  LaCour's blatant fakery passed with flying colors through multiple stages of mandatory academic, "accuracy-liable" reporting, and widespread public assessments.  Faculty advisers, peer reviewers, editors of research journals, social justice non-profits, mass-media reporters and their respective editors - they all accepted and approved the study's premise, methodology, findings, and conclusions.

Even LaCour's "co-author," Columbia University political science professor Donald Green didn't bother to check the validity of the data presented to him.  (This is how it works, by the way, in academia in all countries - you need some professor's name on your papers to get them published).  I can vividly see all these people, too impotent to engage any critical reasoning, speed-reading the first and the last 10 pages of the paper and being bedazzled by colorful charts and tables of numbers. 

Point 3.  Media and public perception will always prevail over reason and truth.  Because for the past several years gay marriage has been one of the hottest topics on the journalistic radar, publication of the study in Science magazine worked like a spark for the international print media engine.  As the result, the research was headlined in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, The Los Angeles Times, and This American Life. 

Because people read about it in these "respected" newspapers and magazines (oh, they've failed us so many times - but people don't want to learn), nobody questioned the fact that the study contradicted the times-proven concept that the vast majority of people tend to hold on to their social and political opinions regardless of what they read or hear.  Moreover, everyone's daily personal interactions are miniature studies in people's staunch stubbornness and inability to absorb opponents' arguments; alas, that was also ignored.

It takes an extraordinary power of persuasion of some very special people who possess illuminating brilliance of the mind, impressive oratory skills, and innate guruship (all of it at the same time) to alter minds and souls.  And I don't think you can find 100 of those in Los Angeles, or the entire state of California, or any single nation.  Hell, let me be honest - I think it would be hard to find 100 people like that on this entire planet.

Yet, the confused liberal do-gooders got so excited about the "scientifically proven" possibility of influencing potential voters through a simple tool of a 20-minute conversation, many of them shook their donors' wallets and scraped their budget barrels in order to fund multiple LGBT canvasing projects.  Are you ready?  Ireland's Yes Campaign publicly connects the successful legalization of gay marriage in that country six weeks ago to their use of LaCour's paper as a template in targeting conservative voters with personal stories' recounts.  Not the years of political struggle, constitutional law reviews, tremendous cultural shifts of the past 20 years affecting generations of people in many countries, but one single (and short) conversation!      

Point 4.  Common sense is all you need to see the truth.  (It's getting to be my mantra, isn't it?)  David Brookman, another graduate student at University of California (only in Berkley, not LA) took a quick look at some of the input data presented in LaCour's research and went like, "What the fuck?"  Or something to that effect - I wasn't really there.  He didn't need any heavy investigative machinery or extensive computer modeling - just simple arithmetic in his head: 10,000 of "recorded" contacts at a disclosed incentives of $100 a pop, that's... $1,000,000!!!  Who the hell funded this scientifically uncertain PhD research in the first place?  (The fact that nobody, not even the co-author, has put two and two together before Brookman did literally makes my blood boil.)  And was it some highly reputable survey organization that handled this substantial sum?  Nah, the name didn't ring any bells, like at all.  After that it was just unspooling the lies.  

Point 5.  The unrepairable damage of pseudoscientific bullshit.  They come in different shapes and forms, and they can manifest themselves right away or in the distant future, but there is no question about it - nothing good ever comes out of pseudoscience and falsified research.  Whether it's Nazi's eugenics providing foundation for racial extermination, or "medical cures" of homosexuality destroying lives, or pulp sci-fi replacing healthcare and education for millions of people around the world - some terrible fallout always follows. 

Without getting all preachy and embarking on a rant about the amorality of LaCour's con, let me instead mention its two more tangible negative outcomes.  

As soon as the fraud was exposed,  The Wall Street Journal (one of the original heralds of the "revolutionary" findings), in a typical swing to the other extreme, gave its editorial page to some conservative "scientists" to vent their righteous indignation.  These theoreticians, of course, couldn't possibly miss the opportunity to denounce all of social science (I guess, that includes Economics) as unscientific and nothing more than "liberal wishful thinking." 

Because so many civil-rights advocacy groups associated themselves with LaCour's bullshit and, as I mentioned before, spent gifted, bequeathed, and granted funds replicating the experiment that never was, they discredited themselves as organizations and people who didn't know what they were doing.  Even staunch supporters feel embarrassed by those leaders who succumbed to someone's unscrupulous methods of advancing their academic careers.  I am guessing, a few non-profit heads will roll.

And truthfully I cannot possibly feel sorry for these fools.  Just like I didn't feel sorry for Bernie Madoff's victims.  These people want to hear the "good news" so badly, they become eager and willing participants in these not-so-clever schemes.   

Gender Equality: Taylor Swift and the Pussy-Cats

Yes, I watched the video and I laughed at the glorious Internet headlines.  Well, what can I say?

To me, the really sad thing about the delirious puppets featured in the Bad Blood video is their conviction that they are real.  Even sadder: because they generate 8-figure annual earnings, have some pull in their closed-off entertainment realms, and are constantly followed by TMZ - they think that they are badass, that they represent the ultimate "Girl Power."  

Well, the truth is they represent nothing but silliness, artifice, and utter emptiness.  What are these little Girls are made of?  Digitally enhanced voices, and unmemorable music with the life expectancy of butterflies, and silly meaningless lyrics, and even sillier antics, and fake emotions, and amateur face-making, and PR-boosted media frenzy, and airbrushed images, and a whole bunch of CGI.  That what these little Girls are made of - not a single fresh thought, not a single lasting idea.  I mean, they hit such level of dilettante mediocrity in that video, it's hard to soldier through it.

Even worse, they don't realize that they are objects AND instruments of manipulations by the men with real power. 

You see, it serves the men's ambitions quite well for this type of Girls to be celebrated.  The dominant gender wants their pedestrian, shallow, benign values to be imprinted onto general public.  These girlish marionettes are very important -their individual contributions into the dumbing of the masses is incredible!  But this video opus is something special!  It amplifies the Girls' damaging effect: together they stay united - not as powerful human entities they think they are, but as a bunch of well-compensated Barbie Dolls on display.  Of course, all girls want to be just like them!  It's the Toys"R"Us effect!    

And for the hetero-male audience?  It's the same ages-old flesh peddling: hooker looks, non-existent clothing or skintight latex, seven-inch heels, and, as a bonus, the all-time favorite subject matter - the catfight.

The bitching kittens are not a threat to the gender disbalance at all.  On the contrary, with every step they make and every sound they utter, they throw away everything women were able to gain so far in the hard-fought struggle for equality, for the right to be treated like humans rather than members of a particular gender.

That's why the male record executives and agents who HANDLE these Girls keep pushing their sissy, non-threatening projects so hard - the more of it is out there polluting every visible and audible media, the less there is room for something real and stirring!       

If these girly bitches really cared about Female Power, they would go and hide their painted faces under their huge pillows in their oversized doll houses.  Their withdrawal from the toolbox of mass manipulations would really benefit the women's fight for equality. 

And you, Joseph Kahn, The Bride is coming for you.  Now, that she is done with Bill, she can find time to teach you a lesson or two.  Because, there is homage and there is cheap, uninspiring imitation.  And you wouldn't know the difference even if it ruptured you with a katana.       

Video Quote of the Week: Oscars - Schmoscars! Let's Talk Gender Equality!

 

The Frustrated CFO'sTalk on International Trade Turns into Gender Equality Q&A

If you took my absence from these pages during the past few months as an indication of my giving up on the blog, you were wrong.  This activity is important to me.  If nothing else, it lets me "talk" without being interrupted.  It's just that the time slot in my overscheduled life, usually allotted to the writing of the blog posts, had to be temporarily relinquished to an extracurricular activity of preparing for a talk I was invited to give to a professional group called Women in International Trade.

Oh, no-no-no!  I'm not talking about OWIT (the Organization of Women in International Trade), the big non-profit with global reach headquartered in Washington, DC.  This group is much smaller - sponsored by a reputable New Jersey CPA firm, it is pretty much localized to the international-commerce entities and banks (like PNC) with offices and operations in that particular state.  It's not like they don't welcome sisters-in-trade from everywhere, it's just how their network happened to develop: commercial clients of the said CPA firm, trade finance clients of the said bank, the local government bureau that deals with exports - all of them work and live in New Jersey.   

And the reality is, there are a lot of big and small international businesses located in New Jersey.  That's where you can have large office buildings that cost a fraction of what they would in Manhattan; there is plenty of open space for manufacturing and storage; there are Hudson ports that can berth oceanic freighters, etc., etc.           

Truth be told, I would never know about these particular Women in International Trade if it weren't for one of the group's member who is also one of my former trade finance bankers and a friend.  She is the one who mentioned me to the sponsoring CPA firm's Chief Growth Strategist - a force behind a lot of women initiatives in the Garden State. 

They've been inviting me to participate in various women's and co-ed business events for some time.  But I have to admit that when you live and work in Manhattan, the hassle of getting to an 8 o'clock breakfast meeting in New Jersey's Essex County makes such invitation very unattractive.  I mean you need to drive or get a limo.  You'll do it for business, of course, but for a semi-social gathering... that's a bit too much. 

Of course, your attitude totally changes when the same professional group invites you to appear for them as a speaker.  Vanity is a terrible sin - it demands constant massaging of one's ego.  That's why some of us write books that bring meager royalty, give lectures without fees, etc.  Plus, unlike the vast majority of people, I actually enjoy sharing my knowledge.  And not for narcissistic, show-off reasons - I get a kick out of recognizing to myself, "I taught her that."  So, naturally, I agreed.

After the initial invitation, I kicked a list of possible topics at the talk's organizer and we settled on two that we both agreed would be the most interesting to international-trade professionals: the position of trade finance in the value chain and KPIs specific to international commerce.  I was advised of the reglament: 1.5 hours talk and 30 min Q&A.

"Well," I thought, "If you are going to talk shop with a group of working women for 90 minutes at 8 o'clock in the morning on a Wednesday, you'd better make it engaging and gratifying," and went to work.  The rule  of thumb is that 90 minutes of talking translates into about 15,000 words.  And that's actually is not very short.

Of course, if you are the one who proposed the topic in the first place, you most likely know the subject at hand through and through; you have already developed original ideas and time-proven recommendations; your thoughts and opinions are well formulated.  And that's great, but if you are not a professional lecturer who does this sort of things all the time, you still need to outline what you want to say; you have to construct your delivery in a coherent and logical way; you must prepare an exciting Power Point presentation that would prevent your audience from getting drowsy, and use cultural references to make your points memorable.  Yeah!  If you want to impress people, it's a lot of work.  As I said, vanity - it costs you.  

The third week of January came, and there I was, in New Jersey, shaking hands with the organizers and the attendees - by all appearances a group of successful and confident women, whose statuses make it okay to be out of the office in the morning hours for the sake of this event.

I proceeded with my presentation and it went well: they paid attention, they were interested, they nodded, they offered sensible and appropriate comments, they loved my visual tricks, and they sincerely laughed at my jokes.  The time ran out.  "Do you have any questions?" I asked.  I was convinced that I've had a pretty good idea about the points of the talk that could've prompted further inquiries.

Imagine my surprise when the first comment/question I've received was, "You are obviously a strong woman.  In your professional capacity, how do you handle male resistance to your authority or any other sorts of gender difficulties?" (Notice how the question was formulated: The woman had no doubt that I've encountered such obstacles ans she wanted to know how I dealt with them.)  

Slightly taken aback by the sharp shift of gears I skipped a bit, but really - just a bit.  I don't need to prepare for a gender equality discussion; I was born ready for it.  So, I briefly described my experience: the unfair treatment; the skewed perception; the idiotic remarks; the preferences given to nitwits because "they have to support their families" (many of us have to do the same); which battles I pick; what I say and how I say it; when I bite my tongue and walk away; how I lie in wait and then find a way to teach them a lesson, etc., etc.

Oh my God!  It was as if that question and my answer triggered a flood.  Apparently these women found my interpretation of the international-trade topics quite clear.  What they were confused about was why in 2015 we are still treated like second-class citizens.

At this point (the time was, obviously, running out), everyone talked fast.  Many things were mentioned: "honeys" and "sweeties," unequal raises, unreasonable promotions, difficulty of holding back the tears, female professional "ceilings," the insulting male disbelief at a good-looking woman who is also smart.  Amazingly, there were not a single person who didn't have something to add.   Nobody said, "I have no idea what you all are talking about."  You know why?  Because there were no men in the room.

One woman in her 30s who was just recently appointed to a Marketing Director position (her warpath has just began), asked me whether I was born "this tough."  Actually, I've thought about it before.  What I told her was that we (i.e. the women who want to succeed) are not born tough.  What we are born with is the ambition, the desire to be rewarded in accordance with our merits, the need to be treated as human beings regardless of our gender.  But, while we claw our ways towards whatever peaks we want to achieve, we have to acquire toughness.  We have to harden or they will eat us alive.

It is possible that I will never see most of the members of this group again, but when we were saying our goodbyes we felt like sisters.  I taught these women a thing or two about trade finance and performance analytics, and, in return, I've learned a lesson of my own:  There are no happy and satisfied women in international trade (and, I dare to extrapolate, in other business activities as well), because their ambitions and efforts are constantly curtailed on account of their gender, which is silly, irrelevant, anti-merit, and (call me an idealist) anti-American. 

Amendment to My Post on Vogue Covers, etc.

Those who have read it may remember that I specifically noted in that post that the possibility of diminishing number of the Confused Liberal Hipsters who misguidedly uphold Lena Dunham in high esteem as their feminist hero can be just my wishful thinking.  Still, I feel obligated to tell my readers that yes, indeed, it was nothing more than a momentary slip into an illusion that people may be getting a little bit less stupid.

I cited New York Magazine's long-time silence about Girls and its creator as a hopeful sign.  Well, I spoke too soon:  In the current issue The Approval Matrix placed that (I mean the image in the picture) on the Brilliant side.  

Then again, they might've been sarcastic...   Like in, "brilliantly exploitive and shockingly repetitive," or something?  You never know nowadays - hipsters don't possess genuine humor.  Thanks, Tina Fey!  And guess what?  See the article below.       

Related articles

Lena Dunham Hosting SNL on March 8!

Executive Gender Equality: The Perversity of Admiration

Ever since this company made into a couple of 2013 national lists of the fastest growing entities, we have been accosted by a slew of various business services offering their assistance and support: insurance brokers, real estate brokers, HR management providers, marketing consultants, etc., and most notably for me - bankers. 

The troubles that befell the banking industry a few years back resulted in its consolidation.  The competition among the diminished number of the key players in the field of institutional finance has stiffened.  They are fighting for clients with proven records of steady profitability, growing equity, and assets with high market liquidity, which, of course, are not that easy to find in our "recovering" economy.  Hence, they are after our business.

All the better for us: We are approaching the expiration date of the credit agreement with our current lender and are looking for a relationship that would be a more suitable match to the fast-growing company.  So, I'm doing what I've done quite a few times throughout my career: I'm meeting with a lot of bankers - explaining the business, answering their drilling questions, providing them with extensive data, spinning the info in the most thrilling way. 

While all this is going on, I cannot help but notice the increased percentage of women in the banking mix.  Well, that shouldn't be surprising, actually: according to many statistical reviews, more than 50% of the corporate middle management in this country are presently females.  I hear from our own sales staff that purchase managers of our customers' (industrial sector, by the way) are predominately highly technical women in their 30s.

Of course, as we climb further up the ladder, the numbers diminish: men dominate upper management to the extend of 70-80%, and only 10% of the C-level executives are women.  Still, I used to be the only "skirt" in a room full of male execs and financiers.  Now, there is a female contingent on the opposite side of the table in 3 out of 4 meetings.  Hell, the founder/CEO of this company is a woman.  Hence, our board of directors is 50% female (her and I) - we are the tough side of the directorship.   

So, here I am in our conference room listening to two representatives from one of the 10 largest banks in the world, who are making a presentation of their proposal (aka a Term Sheet in business dealings).  One of them is a diminutive woman of Korean origin in her late 50s - she is the boss, the North-East Regional Director, a big gun brought on to get the deal closer to the finish line.  With her is one of her many subordinates - a young and ambitious man in his early 30s.  If I end up choosing this bank, I will get him as my Relationship Manager (RM).

The menagerie is balanced by a man at my side - COO/owner/our CEO's whity husband.  He has his full charm on: he cannot help it - he has a soft spot for Pacific-Asian women.  Now he admiringly "complements" the banker-lady for being deceptively tough, i.e. looking pretty and soft, while being steely behind her eyes.  I tense up: here goes seclusive male chauvinism, and you never know how a woman will react to it. 

She handles it beautifully, though:  "Well, you know how it is - brain and beauty combined are lethal."  She turns to me: "Right?"  Well, I wouldn't know - never got a chance to rely on no beauty, just my brain.  But I don't say that.  I just smile. 

I wish my COO would do the same, but he somehow takes it as an invitation for further "admiring."  "Yes, you are absolutely right.  I couldn't put it better myself," and he embarks on telling the bankers how his wife, our CEO, is especially successful in sales because she is a woman who can speak "sweetly on the phone."  He actually uses those words.  "It used to take me," he says, "four phone calls before Dow Chemical would call me back.  But she  sweetly leaves a voice mail and they return her call within 5 minutes!"

He is absolutely overjoyed with pride.  The Korean lady's mouth gets very thin and she looks at me again -we both know: this is how it is.  The men will always find the way to treat us as if we were inferior, whether through insults or with "compliments."

I am disgusted, but I'm willing to dismiss this on the principle "forgive them, for they know not what they do."  And right then he turns his head to me, looks straight into my eyes, and says, "You cannot repeat it outside of this room.  L. always gets very upset when I say this, even though I mean it as a good thing."

Seriously, dude?  You've been warned about it before?  By your wife, who is also your boss?  And what?  You cannot help yourself?  Of course, you cannot, because it's written into your genetic code, like a primal instinct.  And you are too insecure to consciously fight it off!  If it was me...  But she is not me, in many ways she is very different.  And that's why he'd financed this business for her.