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.           

 

Photo Quote of the Week: The Millennial Conundrum

© 2016 Original by YAC. All rights reserved.

Three Business Owners and Five Sales Directors Walk into a Bar...

We used to complain about our country being divided into two colors, red and blue.  Boy, I miss those clear-cut times when we had a few personal liberties to fight about!  Now we are a fucking Pollock's painting!  Social, monetary, ideological, intellectual, and cultural (some even say micro-cultural) differences create a broad variety of political blends and affiliations.  At this point, we have pretty much slid off the two-party platform; we are now swimming (or drowning) in a multi-faction cesspool.  

It definitely looks to me like the 2016 primaries are far more divisive and tumultuous than the presidential election will be in November.  Each candidate, on both sides of the partisan divide, represents a very distinct combination of views and positions that categorically separate him/her from others.  Accordingly, the supporters are broken up into a multitude of tiny puddles, not two oceans.    

This made Politics into a more dangerous and touchy subject than it has ever been. I always tried to uphold the propriety rules and stay clear of the political discussions in public, particularly with co-workers, business relations, perfunctory acquaintances, etc.  But nowadays, I am literally left with only one place where I can express my opinions openly - my own home.  Even in this blog I keep myself in check.  

But there are people who will talk politics anywhere.  They are usually either (i) very brave and willing to take a stand; (ii) too powerful or confident to care; or (iii) absolutely tactless and have no idea that they make others uncomfortable.  The combination of (ii) and (iii) is also very typical.  And, of course, I happened to work with one of those.  It seems that this business owner believes the impossible - that everyone in the room shares his opinions on... everything.

When I end up in one of the awkward situations he creates (usually during business dinners), my choice of actions is simple: ignore (just get myself busy with food or something) or deflect (hopefully there are people with little kids at the table - trumps all other topics).  Sometimes I find a reason to avoid going to an event with this dude altogether; which is what I did the other week during the company's Annual Sales Summit.  

And dammit!  He actually managed to instigate a rare political exposé: he asked everyone around the table (two other business owners and five sales directors) to declare their choices of Presidential Candidates!  I cannot tell you at what level of intoxication these people agreed to basically reveal their political stands  ("No judgement!" was guaranteed, by the way); nor can I warranty the truthfulness of the disclosures.  However, I can testify to the fact that everyone was surprised and/or traumatized by their own unusual candor: one by one, all eight participants came to my office the next day to confide their bewilderment and share the results of this bizarre poll.  And now I am sharing them with you, my readers (in the order they came through my door):

1. Business Owner (the instigator himself), 60:  A liberal Upper West Side exterior, rotten chauvinist interior (just imagine late Nora Ephron writing a really obnoxious character); born and raised in Westchester County, he'd spent 30 years of his life running his own business in Pacific Asia before returning to Central Park West -  Hillary Clinton;
2. Business Owner, 46:  The company's founder and CEO; a remarkable woman who remade herself from a basic Chinese wife into an extremely independent and self-reliant woman - Michael Bloomberg;
3. Sales Director, 48 : A Midwestern gentlemen with deep roots in 250 years of family traditions; a trained chemical engineer, he spent most of his life in business development and sales; an avid hunter and a boater - Jeb Bush;
4. Sales Director, 41: A Texan of Korean descent; another engineer who actually has spent most of his career in chemical manufacturing; someone capable of setting up a production line from A to Z; a tech savvy guy with unbearably weak handshake and darting eyes - Jeb Bush;
5. Sales Director, 45: A third-generation raw-materials distribution professional; born, raised, and still residing near the New Jersey Shore; recently divorced with one daughter whom he loves more than anything; after three beers will bust out pretty credible vocal quotes from Notorious B.I.G. and 2Pac (beats 'n all), if you ask nicely - Donald Trump;
6. Sales Director, 33: An ambitious Korean boy born in Southern California; trained within LG system for the Latin American markets, he possesses the valuable assets of fluent Korean and Spanish; while making a low 6-figure annual income, he still lives with his mom so that he can support her - No one; he stated that no candidate represents his political, economic, or life concerns;
7. Business Owner, 49: A descendant of an old aristocratic Shanghainese family persecuted by the Mao regime, whose parents forced him into piano playing and lounge singing as possible means of self-support; yet, after coming to America at age 16, he chose engineering and business as his areas of interest; he was making a remarkable progress climbing a career ladder of one of the largest plastics producers in the US, when the company's founder (see above) offered him the partnership - Ted Cruz;
8. Sales Director, 65: An old-school career salesman, he was originally responsible for building the core of the company's distribution structure, bringing with him dozens of his customers; a Vietnam War veteran with the combat experience and hot-blooded Italian ancestry, he is known for smashing desk phones against the walls; yet his wife, with whom he lives in Upstate New York, has been able to calm him down for nearly 40 years - Bernie Sanders.

So, here you go, ladies and gentlemen!  By most statistical parameters this group is not even all that diverse!  Yet, the results are all over the place; with some totally surprising picks (Ted Cruz? Really?!).  I mean, some respondents have named people who are not running at all or are out of the running already.  Moreover, the leading Republic and Democratic candidates only got one vote each.  It's remarkable how uncertain and confused our political landscape is!

But I have to say: that last one actually broke my heart a little.  It is unfathomable to me that someone who fought North Vietnamese commies in hand-to-hand combat; who saw with his own eyes the devastation and poverty of the people under socialist regime; who enjoyed the benefits of booming American capitalism during some of our country's most prosperous periods would vote for a socialist.  What veteran would support a senatorial failure that is Bernie Sanders?  And why?  If I had to guess, it's because his daughter and son-in-law are not doing all that great financially up there in Vermont, but they had two kids nevertheless.  The man is afraid that he will be the one paying for his granddaughters' college tuition.

And isn't this typical?  A demagogue promises people something free (without even laying down the actual plan of actions) and everyone's principles go out of the window.  History repeats itself.     

Why Do I Stay Subscribed to Quora Digest?

The truth is I have no idea why I receive Quora Digest emails.  I don't recall subscribing to the feed.  Of course, nowadays one can passively "accept" electronic deliveries of bullshit by failing to unclick some hidden option box.  I am certain, however, that  I'm not registered on Quora website.  I wouldn't.   

Quora, as in plural of Quorum - in the same way as Data is plural of Datum. It is basically a blogging hub masked as a Q&A platform: one registered person posts a question and all other registered contributors are invited to answer.  Strictly speaking, this unrestricted invitation to participate clashes with the name, which refers to "select groups."  Maybe the founders confused it with fora (the Latin plural of forum).  I don't know and I don't care: The whole concept reminds me of Coffee Talk with Linda Richman, when Mike Myers would get "all verklempt" and invite us to talk amongst ourselves by providing a discussion topic.        

Moreover, many things about Quora simply creep me out.  For instance, Quora's T&C state that contributors retain the copyright to their content.  Well, it's great that they threw that in, however, the enforcement appears to be highly problematic.  Questions posted to the site are open for editing by everyone.  This includes official editors and all registered users.  Users can also submit unlimited number of suggestions for editing the responses.  Therefore, the possibilities for modifications of the original material are endless.  The apparent absence of a solution for the copyright sharing basically nullifies the notion of IP protection.

It's weird that the site demands its users to register with their real names instead of handles and go through email verification.  It's not that I think people should hide, but they must remember that Quoara automatically releases users' names to the search engines.  We don't know whether the site gets some sort of fees in return, but it wouldn't surprise me if they do.  Just like it wouldn't surprise me if they intend to sell the subscribers' lists to other marketers as well.  But these are just my speculations.  In the absence of a clear mission statement, that's the only thing one can do - guess.  

In reality, the fact that Adam D'Angelo (CEO) doesn't seem to be interested in generating revenues makes me very suspicious of his actual intentions and motivations.  It seems only logical to suggest that they are spying on the contributors, studying their interests, behavioral patterns, and tastes in preparation for eventual commercialization of the site.  Or is it something even more sinister?  How the hell did they get a $900 million third-round valuation?  What sort of potential revenue this number is based on? 

As I said, it's creepy.  I don't even open Quora Digest emails.  But I'm not unsubscribing either - because of the subject line, which always shows the top question of the day.  I don't want to give up the opportunity to glance at it.  Most of the time, what I see reeks of laziness.  I mean, we live in the Internet age - go on Wikipedia or just google this banal crap!  But once in a while some amazing shit pops up. 

The other day I read: "How can you maximize your happiness in life?"  Wow!  Is this person for real?  60,000 antelopes just died in Kazakhstan for unknown reason and half of Europe is covered in water and mud, but this human is not only happy, he wants to bring the bliss to the next level!  Even crazier, he expects to receive constructive instructions from his fellow Quora members?!  Well, good luck with that!

Actually, it's not this kind of oddities that keep me looking.  I am more interested in patterns and trends.  For instance, recently I've noticed an increase in frequency of the questions concerning material self-sufficiency and economic survival.  Well, it's surprising that people on Quora don't talk about their inability to support themselves all the time.  I'm guessing that most of them consider bringing it up under their real names in front of the strangers embarrassing.  Nevertheless, the number of such queries is apparently spiking. 

Below are three questions I found to be most typical; with my brief comments (remember: I'm not subscribed, so I don't know the answers that followed; I can only provide my own):

1.  "What kind of salary guarantees comfortable living in NYC?"  What a terribly formulated question!  It should've come with a separate note explaining what "comfortable" means to the inquirer.  Cause, what's comfortable to a person fresh out of Idaho who has never spent more than $100 on a pair of shoes and considers a $350 Michael Kors bag a chic statement may mean financial misery to someone with a different background. 

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the questioner is single and actually meant comfortable, but not extravagant, i.e. a good one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan with no roommates; year-round pleasant climate control; full range of cable and streaming entertainments; cell and land phones; a car kept in a garage; designer coffee in a favorite shop; going out for drinks at least once a week; eat out twice a week; cooking with high quality ingredients; good cheese, wine, and fruit in the fridge; mid-range ($800-$1500) outfits; 2-3 new pairs of $500 shoes a year; one new $2000-$3000 bag a year, at least one annual vacation; a play and a concert once in a while.  And the answer is - $250K annual salary should do it, assuming the drinking is actually limited to once a week. 

And you thought that those who made $250K a year are rich?!  Not in this town, baby!

2.  "At Facebook and Google, why are many new CS graduates offered 120K+ with a 30-120K signing bonus while those with a few years experience are offered a baseline salary with no bonus?"  Well, the direct answer to this question is simple: Computer Science, in a sense, is like Medicine and Pharmacology - they continuously undergo major changes and developments.  I mean, double-entry bookkeeping was created 600 years ago and it will remain fundamental as long as accounting records will be needed on this planet.  On the other hand, today's standard surgical techniques were experimental only 5 years ago.  It happens even faster in high-tech where innovations occur pretty much on a monthly basis. 

While doctors never stop studying and researching, most (not all) computer engineers and programmers are not as motivated to stay on top of the game.  Those in training are taught the most up-to-date techniques and methods; they are subjected to the most recent trends.  And that's what Facebooks and Googles want - the newest and the freshest; in order to keep ahead of the rat race.  So, it's not about whether you graduated this year or five years ago - it's the set of skills you put on your resume.  Veteran coders who can match the knacks with 22-year-olds can demand pretty much the same level of compensation. 

But what interests me the most in this inquiry is its fiscal aspect.  There is no way the $120K/year new hires of Facebook and Google will be able to enjoy the comforts similar to those listed in point 1.  These companies operate largely in San Francisco Bay area, which, according to my observations of exactly 2 years ago, is even less affordable than NYC.  Of course, high-tech nerds of both sexes go to work in khakis and polo shirts and don't carry Prada bags to the office.  On the other hand, they buy more electronic devices than any other human and their coffee is far more expensive.  So, some corners will need to be cut.  

Obviously their lower-compensated older co-workers have even harder time (hence, the exasperation and the bitterness).  Let's hope that they are smart enough to share expenses with their partners/spouses and don't plan on having any kids.

3.  "I'm unemployed, broke, balding, living with my parents, about to turn 30, friendless, depressed, and miserable.  How can I possibly turn it around?"

Ah, and here we come to the reality of the vast majority.  This boy probably forgot to mention that he has a degree(s) in Liberal Arts and no practical skills.  The horde of young people in similar situations is ever-expanding.  They are so far removed from the idea of "comfortable" living that a $120K salary seems just as fantastic to them as a $3 million book advance or a $20 million per movie compensation package.

They were brought up on the illusion that in this Land of Opportunities they have the freedom of pursuing their interests in humanities and, "as long as they work hard," their "rightful" place in the economic system is guaranteed.  They failed to realize that this clinically dead ideal has been kept on life support by the tuition-hungry education institutions for years.  They probably still don't know that the economic system in question has been deformed and became unrecognizable, just like the sociopolitical structures, environmental conditions, and human relationships.

I can just imagine the answers elicited by this question.  They probably fell into two categories: the ones from the peers ("Dude, you are totally fucked!" or "I hear you, bro!") and the ones from the middle-aged politically correct deniers of reality ("It's okay, things will get better" or "There is nothing wrong with being bold").    

As for me, only a few years ago I would've still tried to be motivational and push my entrepreneurial agenda, urging this person to crystallize his aptitudes into a small business idea and work hard on making it happen for himself.  I used to say that if misplaced children of my peers went into landscaping, housekeeping, and maintenance businesses, it would've solved both the employment and the immigration problems in one sweep.  But now we operate under the most severe government interference in the small-business matters (minimum wages, Obamacare tolls, US Treasury restrictions on borrowing, etc.) and the number of illegal immigrants became unmanageable.  So, giving such an advice would be adding insult to injury.  All I can say is - you are totally fucked, dude!                            

The Frustrated CFO Recommends: Black Mirror

If you can stomach the naked truth about the world we live in, about your surroundings and yourself; if you are ready to actually see a clear depiction of the pile of unbearable scum that the human species has become, watch Black Mirror.  Pay attention and look hard  - it reflects Homo Technologiae  and its self-made surroundings at its realest.

And for those who don't look at the world through the pink glasses of delusional denial, what a joy to know that there is Charlie Brooker and his cohorts at Zeppotron!  What a gratifying experience to realize that there are like-minded people out there!  

Thank you, to everyone who has been working on this reality-fiction anthology and to those at Channel 4 responsible for its distribution.  And special thanks to the executives at Netflix who are continuously bringing narrow-niche products like this to their 60 million global subscribers.  

It has been reported that the show is  a big success in the US.  Well, I don't know if everyone understands that they are looking at their own reflections.  Nevertheless, this gives us a shred of hope, doesn't it?    

Related articles

Black Mirror tipped as possible future Netflix exclusive

Musings Over People's Deficiencies, or the Division of Labor Extreme

A few weeks ago, this young artist I know went to a party - a sort of a mingling of, let's say (trying to be as vague as possible), people in creative fields.  Afterwards, I asked her how it went and the first thing that I got back was actually a rhetorical question: "Why do people suck so bad at organizing things?"

Turns out the party was arranged by a couple of guys who were "minglers" themselves and volunteered to spearhead the process; apparently, with an unsatisfactory result.  I can hear some of my readers saying with all-knowing intonations, "This is why you outsource to professional event-planners or employ support staffers with event-organizing responsibilities."

And they are correct.  I rarely go to parties myself, but the last two I attended were a huge Gala (over 700 people) and a small Gala (250 people).  The former was put together by a "big-name" event-planning firm and the latter by the event chairman's personal assistant.  Well, those were pretty large affairs with complicated programs and minor celebrities in attendance.  But a regular cocktail and/or dinner party? 

To tell you the truth, every time people start calling expensive coordinators to manage some itty-bitty occasion I have the same mental image: Steve Martin's remade father of the bride questioning his wife (Diane Keaton) on why two people who successfully run independent businesses need any help in putting together a wedding; let alone help of some guy with an unidentifiable accent (Martin Short) and his smug assistant (BD Wong, which is uncanny, cause he was one of the celebrity guests at that big gala I mentioned above).  

You probably think, "Why don't you try it yourself?"  So, let me assure you that I do have experience of rolling up my sleeves and stepping into party-planning when nobody else around is up to the task; most recently for a celebratory corporate festivity for my company with 80 guests.  And, yes, I am a control freak (at least I admit it) and sometimes it is a contributing factor into my taking charge of things, but honestly it was either doing it myself or wasting thousands of dollars on outsourcing. 

Let me remind you that I am a career CFO with multiple interests - I don't do parties, professionally or as a hobby.  Yet, 18 months later people are still talking about it.  And I promise you I didn't do anything out of the ordinary - I simply approached the problem in a logical and systematic way.  That was the very reason the project fell into my lap in the first place - people always rely on my common sense.

But that's a rare commodity nowadays, common sense, isn't it?  And the lack of it causes the trend of ultra-narrow specialization we observe today.  I am not surprised at all that those artistic types couldn't organize a decent party.  Haven't you noticed?  The majority of people around you are good primarily at one thing (if they are good at anything at all): performing their paying jobs, or looking pretty, or being social, or shopping, or cooking.  A person who is "good with people," usually sucks with numbers.  The hard-working breadwinners are mostly useless in their households.  Overwhelming number of people don't even have hobbies these days.  And those with fun-and-leisure faves are too preoccupied to do well at work.

And don't even get me started on the narrow professional specialization cultivated by headhunters and HR specialists too limited to comprehend the concept of adaptable competence!  They perverted the idea of "transferable skills" into exact matches of specific employment in a specific type of company of a specific industry.  Instead of assessing whether an applicant is capable of applying his expertise to ANY business situation they go through a checklist of specialized tasks.  You may be the strongest professional they've ever met, but if you don't collect enough check marks on the roster of narrowly defined projects, you will not be considered.  

How can we be surprised then that people are losing their capacity for systematic thinking both at work and life when they are stuck doing the same shit over and over again?  I'll tell you a secret: I never hire anybody whose resume shows 20 or even 10 years of static employment, no matter how "prestigious" it is.  Adaptability is one of my top 10 key factors of the value assessment.  I like my Renaissance people!             

The scary level of targeted specialization we have reached at this point is not evolutionary or revolutionary; and it's not economically beneficial and "progressive."  This is the aftermath of the intellectual (and physical) laziness that spreads into larger and larger segments of the general population like a pandemic.  The spoiled brats from all kinds of walks of life don't want to do elementary things themselves; they demand to be served, and, the shrinking minority of  enterprising people take the opportunity to supply such services - the natural laws of supply and demand are still struggling against nothingness.

On the opposite side from the utmost lethargy, but causing exactly the same regressively narrow results, is the other extreme - that glorified "focus" on your job and the job only.  Well, mental health specialists define the intense preoccupation with a narrow subject or activity as one of the main characteristics of Asperger syndrome.  And that's a mental disorder! 

Evolutionary speaking, we were never supposed to be this labor-differentiated, because  diverting the responsibilities for all your needs to others humans undercuts your personal chance for survival.  I am not talking pro-level pilotage in every task of life, of course, but there is basic shit you should be able to do yourself! 

And yes, that includes coordinating a simple gathering of people to everyone's satisfaction if the need arises.  I am not saying "Met Gala" with spectacular celebrities, but an ordinary function for 100 regular schmucks should be pretty manageable.

The same goes, as another example, for vacation planning.  One should be capable of tailoring his own decent vacation without paying for some generic package thrown together by an absent-minded leisure-industry professional who knows nothing about you and your companions.

And you should be able to make your place of residence livable without paying $300K fees to a "professional decorator" who will additionally charge you $50K for each made-in-China table lamp that you can buy at Lamp Warehouse in Brooklyn for $3K.  I am not saying Architectural Digest spreads, just a tasteful arrangement of furniture and some tchotchkes that make you feel at home.

And there is no need to call a handyman for bulb-changing, or picture-hanging, or installing a new toilet seat.  Unless, of course, it's a multifunctional state-of-the-art accessory that you've got yourself from Japan via Amazon.  I am not talking about using dangerous power tools to carve a brand-new lock into your door either - such types of amateur endeavors are reserved for very special people, but at least buy yourself a screwdriver.

And I am sorry, mathematically challenged people, but it is not funny anymore that you cannot (and don't want to) balance your checkbooks.  In the age of electronic payments, smart-phone deposits, massive hacking attacks, and readily available devices that can remotely override the security of every plastic item in your wallet, it is really dangerous not to reconcile your cash ins and outs with the bank records.  It's not a goddamned Newton's binomial theorem either!  Just pure arithmetic!  

And green thumb or not, one should be able to plant a seed and tend to it with sufficient care and persistence until it flowers or bears fruit.  Nobody is expecting award-winning roses and pluots here, but carrots, tomatoes, and onions can be managed by a child.

And not being able to cook a simple meal for yourself?  That's just pathetic!  What the hell are you going to do in the absence of the online orders and take-outs?  Chew raw pasta?

Yet, we hear all around us:

"I am totally retarded when it comes to cooking.  I can't even boil an egg!"

Or, "I wouldn't be able to sew a button to save my life!"

That "save my life" turn of phrase is not accidental, by the way.  The day may come when it can have a very literal meaning. 

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.       

"Civilized" Overpopulation and Epidural

Some time ago, I posted here a video quote of the Gates Foundations' family-planning message.  I mean, you say "family planning" and I will acknowledge your efforts, no matter how feeble, superficial, and confusedly motivated.  Yet, it's important for me to clarify that my own position on family planning is a bit stronger and much wider than those of the philanthropists behind the cute video.  Essentially, the title I chose for the animated citation intended to hint on my personal focus - after all, I did use words like "Key to Economic and Social Survival."

You see, the majority of charitable efforts and government aids are focused on the prevention of unwanted births and directed at either the "third-world" countries or our own domestic lower-income classes.  This is because the predominant idea behind these undertakings, granted too radical for Catholics and the conservative right, is still incredibly human-centric and terribly inadequate with respect to the ecological and other planetary concerns. 

It is basically limited to one straightforward notion that those who cannot afford to provide multiple children with sufficient sustenance, housing, clothing, education, and information technology shouldn't have them (the children).  So, disadvantaged people in poor countries and counties should stop reproducing (and they should, no question about it!), so that the emissaries of the bleeding rich hearts would stop sending to their bosses the unpleasant images of starving, sick, infested, and dying children.  Meanwhile, nobody is paying attention to the violent overpopulation crimes committed against our precious Earth not in some far away land but in so-called centers of "civilization."  

12 years ago my place of residence, a Manhattan high-rise, was famous for having more pets than children.  Today, the building is flooded with infants, toddlers, preschoolers, preteens, and teenagers.  Only after midnight you can pass through the lobby without stumbling into well-off pro-choice parents with the broods of two, three, even four children.   

Practically every single business owner I ever worked with has three children (I swear!).  How about the democratic billionaire couple that cares so much about the family planning in underdeveloped countries, i.e. Bill and Melinda Gates?  How many children do they have?  You guessed it - three! And their philanthropic cohort Warren Buffett?  Also three!  It's some sort of a magic fucking number!  And the funny thing is, they probably think that they are doing right by the Planet - they can afford a whole school of children, but they limited themselves to "just three!"  

So, now let me tell you what I think.  It is my firm believe that in the current state of ecological deterioration, unstoppable depletion of natural and fiscal resources, exponential mental and emotional degeneration of an average human, complete disappearance of merit principles, and overwhelming crumbling of social liberties - it is nothing short of a crime for anybody (and I mean, ANYBODY) to have more than one child!   

This is simple arithmetic, folks:  Why the hell my one child must share air with these endless triple offsprings?  Use your imagination for a second and replace those triples and duos with ones - how much air, food, resources, personal attention, and devotion would we have per each individual child then?  I don't know about you, but this mental picture seems like a much healthier and somewhat less doomed present and future to me. 

I cannot even begin to describe how angry these fucking people with multiple children make me, regardless of who they are - those with sufficient household wealth and those who keep popping them out because our federal and state governments throw our taxes at them (the more dependents, the higher the welfare payments); those who claim that they do it for God and those who "cement their marriages" using babies as cinder blocks. 

And, of course, I always fumed at fertility doctors endlessly pollinating multiple eggs with abundant sperm to ensure successful fertilization, thus exponentially increasing the probability of twin, triple, and even quadruple births.  But, as it turns out, the doctors, who take upon themselves the appalling task of correcting Nature and giving children to people who were meant to have none, are not the worst of medical offenders against our Planet. 

The whims of my life spared me from being exposed to child-bearing and births for the past 20 years.  As a result, I was sheltered from the macabre reality of what I can only call a large-scale bolstering of "civilized" overpopulation.  Until the last year that is, when one of my subordinates got pregnant for the first time.

We are fairly close and she frequently asks for my advice on matters outside of our professional relationship.  So, in the last trimester she approached me with the following: "My doctor asked me if I wanted Epidural." "Why?" I asked innocently, "You are not having a C-section."  She shrugged her shoulders, "Well, they give it to everyone who doesn't want the pain now.  And they've been doing it for years.  But I've read it's not good for the baby."

What???!!!  They give it to everyone?  Even to healthy young women who are built to go through natural labor without any complications?  No wonder these people think nothing of having one child after another.  Why not? But do they ever dwell on a pretty obvious concept that there might be a reason why Mother Nature intended for the birth of a child to be a labor of pain and love?  And don't even get me started on what all these drug-induced and anesthetic-aided infant extractions (you cannot seriously call them labors at this point) do to these newborn humans. 

Obviously, these parents don't care much about the future of their children.  And it's not shocking to me that the drug-pushing doctors and their sponsors, i.e. big pharma, don't care about the survival of their own descendants either.  It should be, but it's not.  The opportunism has become the blinding principle of everyone's existence and it always prevails - all they care about is their bank accounts' balances today!  As they say in French, Apres Moi, le deluge (After me comes the flood)!

And here is another angle.  The conveyor birthing and ballooning families are among the main causes for the perpetually increasing health insurance rates.  Do you realize that in addition to the terrible effect they have on the global environment and economics, these multi-child families are basic larcenists?  Daily they steal hard-earned money from single individuals and one-child parents who are forced to pay exorbitant premiums inflated by these thieves.

I thought that I would never align my interests with those of any big public organization, but in the fight for our Planet's survival any allies count, even those who take the right actions for the wrong reasons.  In their unyielding pursuit of stock "value" inflation, health insurers do whatever they can to assist those who want to stay childless or keep their families small: a vasectomy is covered 100%, so is a once a year abortion performed by a network provider.  Obviously, in the long run these procedures are far more economical than prenatal care, birth, child healthcare, etc., etc. 

Thus, inadvertently, the insurance companies actually contribute to the fight against overpopulation.  But they can do more!  How about they stop covering the goddamn epidural administered to absolutely healthy women?  The last I've heard, each shot costs about $2,000.  So, c'mon HMO, let them feel it, both in their pockets and, as Nature intended, in their birth canals.  Maybe this will make at least some of them to stop at #1.              

Quote of the Week: Mike Judge, the Prophet

"Data creation is exploding.  With all the selfies and useless files people refuse to delete on the Cloud - 92% of the world's data was created in the last two years alone.  At the current rate, the world's data storage capiacity will be overtaken by next Spring.  It will be nothing short of a catastrophe: data shortages, data rationing, data black markets...  Datageddon!"

                            Gavin Belson, founder & CEO of Hooli, Inc.

                    (Silicon Valley, co-created by Mike Judge, episode 2.1)

The Frustrated CFO's commentary:  For years now, the genius that lives in my home has been responding to all innovations of information technology with the same mantra: "As long as the servers can bear it."  I humbly concur.  And it is reassuring that exactly the same sentiments are finally being verbalized through a pop-culture medium, such as HBO.  It is especially awesome and scary that this confirmation of the imminent future comes courtesy of the prophetic marvel Mike Judge - the one third of, what I call, the Trinity of the Eye-Opening Truth (Trey Parker, Matt Stone, and Mike Judge).  It's scary because the man possesses  Cassandra's foresight: In 2006 when the incredible cult classic Idiocracy came out, it was written off by distributors as a campy sci-fi; eight years later people started creating lists of Mike Judge's predictions that already came true: on birth rates, on advertising, on entertainment, on language, on political process, etc.  Not everyone is as fortunate as I am to have a warning oracle at home.   Hence, they should pay attention to Mr. Judge and his collaborators.      

The Wealth of the Nation: Observation #1

It got warmer now, but for a few weeks leading up to this one it was bitterly cold in NYC, with temperatures falling into single digits and wind pushing the chill effect below zero.  And I don't really know if my fellow bundled-up New Yorkers noticed them, but I saw them all the time - the girls wearing flats on their bare feet.

Let's say you are walking to your office in Financial District.  The iPhone displays 13 degrees air temperature and the ground, covered in snow, would likely register 5.  More snow is falling from the sky.  You keep your head down watching out for slippery spots and inadvertently see people's footwear.  

There are plenty of toe-warming UGGs (actually a California brand, early on manufactured in Australia, now almost entirely in China), a variety of snow and rain boots (not as warm, but at least waterproof), leather boots, frozen high-tops.  And once in a while you spot them - they are running to work too (no, they didn't just popped out for a second!) and all they have on their feet are tiny flats (it could be just my shocked perception, but it seems that it is always a pair of silver Tory Burches).  They usually wear black leggings thus exposing their ankles and essentially most of their feet to the bitter, Siberian cold.  Three times in the last 4 weeks I rode in the elevator with one of those girls.

I cannot say that I fervently keep up with the latest fashion trends, but I can guarantee that these girls are not making fashion statements - nobody is that painfully style-forward.  The likely scenario is that protecting their feet from possible frostbites simply doesn't fit into their budgets.  When they came from their hometowns to New York City (annual average temperature 55 degrees), they didn't expect (most people didn't) that it could be so cold here for 3-4 weeks in a row.  And there is no way they can splurge on items that will be used for such a short time.

How could they?  After their $1,300 portion of rent and utilities for the two-bedroom shared with another two roommates, cell phone bill, barely any food at all (even the cheapest of foodstuffs are expensive here), Metrocard, some H&M clothes to appear decent in the office, household supplies, and the minimum payment due on the Visa card used to buy the cheapest puffer coat on sale, their $3,250 a month after payroll deductions (from $60K annual salary) are gone pretty much as soon as they hit the bank account.

Meanwhile, the shortest and simplest pair of UGGs costs $155 and if you spent some time searching (or get lucky) you can find a pair of snow boots for $90.  Well, if you buy something classic that never goes out of style this is a pretty good investment, since they may be useful next year and the year after.  However, if you simply don't have that extra $100 or even $12 to cover the increase of the minimum payment on the credit card, you forgo the warmth and comfort.  After all, it's only a few weeks a year. 

I am looking at the almost naked feet and think that those flats are probably the only shoes she's got that are suitable for the fancy office (business attired only!) of a big company that hired her because of her hard-earned degree in marketing with 4.0 GPA.  And so, she will run in them in severely cold conditions from her home to the subway and then to the office building...  What for?  I have no fucking clue.