There was a “movement” in the 1990s inspired by Robert Bly’s book Iron John: A Book About Men that involved “wilderness retreats.”
I’m not sure about the specifics – drum circles and chanting were involved. To me it sounded a little like “Boy Scouts” for adults – but that isn’t important.
For what it is worth – The Boy Scouts of America were founded in 1910 and were much more concerned with “character building” than “connecting with nature.”
Of course most folks still lived in “rural” areas in the United States until around 1920. The 1920 census showed that 51.2% of the U.S. population (~54 million people) lived in urban areas, while 48.8% (~52 million people) lived in rural areas.
The industrial revolution had been motivating the shift from rural to urban for 40 years by then. If you live and work on a farm – “nature” is something you deal with on a daily basis. A “break from the ordinary” for those folks would have been a trip to the big city …
Health Benefits …
There has (probably) been the perception that “country living” was “healthier” than “city living” for over 1,000 years. World history can be framed as “city” vs “farm” – which is usually a, either/or logical error. Human history isn’t a story of city OR farm – but city AND farm. Those folks living in the city need the agricultural products those farm produce – and those farmers need the city as a market for their produce.
It is easy to forget that for MOST of human history the “average person” was a subsistence farmer. Those subsistence farmers would also have been mostly illiterate – so they didn’t leave a lot of manuscripts for historians to examine.
The reality of subsistence farming is that starvation is just a crop failure away – but again if the crops fail, those city folks are also staring starvation in the face …
It is interesting to point out that Thomas Jefferson’s vision for the future of the United States was a collection of yeoman farmers. His theory was that the “independent landowner who cultivates his own family farm” would be less prone to corruption. BUT his theory revolved around the the yeoman farmer being morally superior to the “city dweller” – i.e. “public health” wasn’t his concern …
Under the category of “just me guessing” – poor sanitation and infectious diseases would explain MOST of the perception of country life being “healthier” than city life . The stereotype of the “well to do” 100+ years ago would include a “country home” where they could escape the heat and stench of the “big city”.
BUT is modern city living inherently LESS healthy than “country living?” Well, the answer is “it depends” – i.e. there are a large number of other factors involved.
Greenspace …
I’m told that “Forest bathing” has been a thing is Japan since the early 1980s.
Google tells me: “known as shinrin-yoku in Japanese, is a nature-based wellness practice that involves immersing your senses in the atmosphere of a forest to improve mental and physical health. Literally translating to “absorbing the forest atmosphere,” the practice does not involve physical swimming or bathing; rather, it is about slowly and mindfully connecting with nature.”
Now, trying to separate “mental” and “physical” health is impossible – so I won’t try.
What I’m curious about is the cause and effect public health benefits of “greenspace.”
The is (probably) a direct correlation between the amount of “greenspace” and and a large number of societal ills. With the obvious “statistics 101” response being that correlation never equals causation.
I am willing to believe that “a walk in greenspace” or forest bathing has positive mental and physical benefits. Would more “greenspace” improve public health?
Well, the answer is “it depends.”
Consider that Andrew Carnegie (once the richest man in the world( helped build 2,509 libraries between 1883 and 1929. Mr Carnegie would pay for construction and the municipality had to commit to “commit public funds (usually 10% of the building’s cost per year) to maintain, operate, and stock the library with books” (thank you Google/Wikipedia).
The same idea would apply to building “greenspace.” Building the park is only half of the problem – the park has to be maintained.
IF the community is willing to invest the resources to maintain the greenspace then that is an investment in the community THAT would be much different than greenspace funded by “not the local community”
Just like building a library won’t automatically improve literacy – building greenspace won’t automatically improve public health.
Yes, more greenspace would most likely correlate to better public health – but the CAUSE of the improvement would be the shift in community values that prioritized the building and maintenance of that greenspace. Just building a park that goes unused and is abandoned after a few years will do nothing positive for public health.
… back during the “dotcom” boom and bust the way companies “expensed” stock options became an issue
This was actually one of “case studies” when I was doing the MBA thing. The details are something that accountants might find interesting – e.g. the big picture question was if “back dating stock options to retain employees” was “ethical” or not — I think it was one of those 10,000 words assignments – short answer “of course it is not” 😉
huh? what?
First some quick definitions — Story time!
Ok, imagine that someone starts a business. Then assume that the company is growing and decides to seek “outside investors.”
The company has two basic options – they can take out a lone OR they can sell partial ownership of the company.
A loan comes with the obligation to pay it back plus interest. When the loan is treated as an investment it gets called a “bond” -it is a binding legal contract.
Selling partial ownership sounds simple – but quickly gets complicated.
Imagine a group of four friends starts a company. If each person owns a equal part of the company we could say that the company “stock” consists of four “shares.”
Well, with just four people the arrangement would probably get called a partnership. The problem with a simple partnership is if something goes wrong ALL of the partners will be held responsible.
Now if you are starting a business with people you know and trust you might be willing to take that risk. BUT then when the company needs to seek “additional investment money” and more “partners” are added – the risk of one partner ruining EVERYONE increases.
The way of dealing with the risk of partnerships is a “limited liability” business structure. “Investors” in a limited liability company might lose the money they have invested in that company – but the investors other assets are safe.
A “financial advisor” would call the idea that you shouldn’t put EVERYTHING into ANYTHING – “diversification“
No, I’m not in the business of giving financial advice. “Big picture” – Money isn’t evil – the LOVE of money causes all kinds of problems.
The idea being that if you LOVE money you can never have “enough” – and then you will probably be willing to do all kinds of “not wise” things to get “more.”
“Greed” is never “good” simply because greed implies getting more by hurting someone else. Looking out for your best interest isn’t greed. Investing wisely isn’t greed.
“You can’t cheat an honest man …”
W.C. Fields
That pull quote is the title of a 1939 movie starring W.C. Fields – yes it is a comedy. Consider the quote as a truism – if you can’t cheat an “honest man” then it is because an “honest” man isn’t looking to get something for nothing. SO you might be able to rob or steal from an honest man – but to “cheat” them requires feeding their “greed”
Since I stumbled onto the subject –
Don’t invest in anything you don’t understand
Don’t expect something for nothing
Don’t put all of your eggs into one basket
Don’t believe the hype – FOMO is a great way to be cheated
Meanwhile – back at the ranch …
SO we have stocks and bonds – which are the bread and butter of “corporate finance.”
A company has an “Initial Public Offering” (IPO) to raise money. Then companies might issue stocks and bonds as part of normal “finance” operations – which isn’t important here, except to point out that what you see covered as “the stock market” is a “secondary market.”
A company raises capital money by selling shares – and then those shares can be bought and sold on various “secondary markets.”
To be listed and traded on those markets the company has to meet various requirements – the specific of which aren’t important. What IS important is what is implied about a stock by where it is being traded.
Google “NYSE vs Pink Sheets” and the AI overview might tell you:
“The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) is a highly regulated, centralized national exchange for large, established companies, while the Pink Sheets (now known as the OTC Pink market) are a decentralized over-the-counter trading system for speculative, small, or distressed companies.”
Motivation? Options?
The financial derivatives markets are where other “financial instruments” based on stocks get traded. These tend to be where the “professional investors” hang out. When you hear those stock market reporters talking about “options” and “futures” – that is probably what they are talking about. You’ll jump to jump through some hoops if you want to buy and sell in those markets.
Again, that isn’t important at the moment …
Founders of a company will have a substantial number of shares when the company “goes public” (has their IPO).
e.g
Google tells me Mark Zuckerberg had 534 million shares of Facebook when it went public in 2012.
The founders of Google (Larry Page and Sergey Brin) each owned around 15% of the Google stock when it went public in 2004 (which was millions of shares).
Steve Jobs owned 11% of Apple Computers (7.5 million shares) when it went public in 1980
The point here being that founders of a company always “cash out” a little during the IPO.
In the era of “venture capital” those early investors goal is probably “IPO cash out” – which is always a high risk and high reward proposition.
HOWEVER for “founders” the IPO “cash out” is obviously important but not THE MOST important element of founding the business.
Of course the money is important – but once they have all the money they will ever need it ceases to be prime motivator.
What DOES motivate those founders after an IPO? Well, probably the same things that motivated them BEFORE the IPO.
The folks that actually knew Steve Jobs would point out that he saw technology in general (and Apple computer in particular) as a force for positive change in the world.
The Google Boys were inspired by solving a problem – they didn’t set out to change the world, but did. The “history of the internet” could be divided into “before Google” and “after Google” …
Mark Zuckerberg had Steve Jobs and Bill Gates as “tech entrepreneur” roll models – so he comes across as being the most “monetary motivated” of my selection – he still has “problem solving” and “world changing” as motivators
fwiw: The book that served as “source material” for the “The Social Network” movie was titled “The Accidental Billionaires” (2009 Ben Mezrich) – the book was interesting – I still haven’t seen the movie …
Insider Trading
AFTER the IPO if “insiders” sell shares they have to report that sale within two to four business days – well, that is required by the Securities Exchange Commission in the U.S. – I’m guessing stock exchanges in other nations have similar requirements.
The intent of a large number of SEC regulations is to protect the integrity of the various stock markets. After all if the stock is trading in a public market – then “insiders” could easily manipulate the market to increase (or decrease) the public share price.
Which makes the timing of “founders” selling their shares actionable intelligence for savvy investors.
IT ALSO means that an insider even appearing to accidentally manipulate stock prices something the SEC is going to notice.
Employee Stock Options
Total “executive compensation” REALLY took off when companies started offering “stock options” as part of executive compensation.
The theory is that that the publicly traded stock price directly reflects the companies value/performance. Then if the stock price goes up the people running the company must have done something good. Makes sense – it absolutely isn’t true 100% of the time but it has become common practice
Explaining EMPLOYEE stock options is a two drink exercise – short form – when a company grants “stock options” to a employee those options probably have a fixed price and a vesting date –
e.g. imagine “bigwig ceo” gets “x” number of stock options at a “price” and can exercise those options after a “certain period” of employment time –
if those stock options were granted at $1 and the vesting time is 4 years – the employee can “exercise” the option at whatever price the company stock is trading after 4 years – SO if the stock price went UP the employee has a valuable asset BUT if the stock price went DOWN the options are worthless
Remember – the point of “stock options” is to align “employee motivation” with “company outcomes”
A reasonable person might think that working for the “best interest” of the company is always a given – but that is only part of the equation.
I like to point out that if an “executive” is doing their job well – then it is hard to pay them TOO MUCH. Just like if “executive” is treating the company like their personal piggy bank – then it is hard to fire them fast enough …
Steve Jobs was getting $1 a year as CEO of Apple from his return in 1997 to his 2011 resignation. Of course there is more to the story – he also accumulated 5.5 million shares of Apple stock as compensation – which he left to his wife when he died making her one of the wealthiest women in the world (over $11 billion).
Startup stock options
The “legend of Apple Computers” includes former Apple employees with stories of being offered the choice between “Apple stock” or “cash” – and they chose the cash.
These stories are (probably) not ALL true, but they are plausible. i.e. startups are ALWAYS short on “cash” but granting stock options is probably cheap and easy.
Of course if the startup fails the stock is worthless – and if the startup becomes “Apple” then those shares could have been worth $millions.
Part of the “Google” story involves the fact that they gave stock options to a lot of “ordinary” employees – e.g. when Google had their IPO they had ~2,300 employees and ~1,000 of those folks become $millionaires after the IPO
of course founders Larry Page and Sergey Brine had a lot more stock then those folks and become $multi-billionaires
I’m gonna guess that those “ordinary employees” – working in building maintenance and the company cafeteria – PROBABLY quit their jobs. Then the highly qualified folks Google hired after those folks quit probably got a stock ownership option.
i.e. the solution to the growing gap between “executive compensation” and “ordinary employee wages” could include “ownership” options. Obviously there is no “one size fits all” solution …
Then there is Elon Musk …
All this came to mind because of the Elon Musk hit-piece documentary that is trying to portray him as a stock manipulator – which is specious at best-
I’m not sure how many companies Mr Musk has started – but that is his “secret to success” – i.e. he is a “serial entrepreneur.”
He earned $22 million for selling Zip2 to Compaq back in 1999. Then another $180 million when eBay bought PayPal in 2002.
The Tesla story is “messy” – but he is a big part of it one way or another. The Tesla board of directors and shareholders wanted to keep him around – so they came up with a (potential) $trillion compensation package that is loaded with performance objectives over 10 years.
Is Mr Musk worth $trillion to Tesla? That isn’t really the issue – but if he manages to meet all of the performance then the answer will be “yes.”
How likely it is that he WILL meet all of the objectives? I have no idea. I’m only interested as an observer – so I wish him luck …
The provenance of this speech boils down to me “discovering” Vince Lombardi in the mid-late 1980s and being given a copy of a mimeographed transcript that I was told was given by Vince Lombardi.
I have no reason to question the authenticity of the speech – but I wasn’t at the event … so I believe Vince Lombardi gave the speech in June of 1970 to a group of “business people” in Dayton, Ohio
Google verifies that June 22, 1970 was Mr Lombardi’s “last public appearance and speech before his death on September 3, 1970.”
The Dayton Daily News had a 2012 article referencing the event (“Lombardi’s last public speech was in Dayton” – April 28, 2012)
SO when I got a computer – one of the things I did was type in the text from my mimeograph copy. I probably used WordPerfect.
When I created the pdf I did a little light editing – mostly breaking up long paragraphs into smaller paragraphs and adding a little punctuation.
The original text read like a transcript of a live event – my guess is that the paragraph breaks were more about time than content. There are parts that come across as a speech given by an experienced public speaker – he probably had “notes” but not the entire speech written down.
… a well trained “customer service representative” (CSR) – when dealing with a “customer” – will never use the phrase “I’m busy” or “I don’t have time”
first of all the customer doesn’t REALLY care – they are contacting “customer service” because they had a problem, the fact that the occasional individual CSR is new (and learning) or is just incompetent becomes another hurdle to overcome in getting “problem fixed”
the “good customers” will politely wait (because yelling at the CSR ain’t gonna make things happen faster) – but the chances of that customer leaving/switching/never coming back will increase if the “customer service experience” is bad enough
NOW if the “cost of switching” is zero (0) and customer service is “bad” then that means that “customer loyalty” will be non-existent
Business plans
if the “business” in question operates on high volume and low profit margins – then the amount of “customer service” is guaranteed to be “low”
this is by design – think “big box store” – they have low prices, but getting “help” will be a challenge. Which isn’t necessarily a problem – as long as “customer expectations” are still met – i.e. I don’t EXPECT a high level of service when I go to “big box store”
still – CSR’s should be trained to actually be helpful and polite – “helpful and polite” goes a long way (and yes, sometimes the customer IS the problem – still “helpful and polite” is the best option)
BUT the other end of the business plan spectrum is “low volume and high profit margins” — think “luxury brands” – e.g. someone can buy a watch/jewelry at Walmart or Tiffany’s but the “customer expectations” will be totally different
of course at “luxury brand” the CSR to customer ratio might be close to 1:1 – the customer is paying a lot more, so they expect a lot more
Personal Brand Building
THEN somewhere in the middle are folks trying to build an “influencer”/”artist” brand of some kind. Again the terms “I’m busy” or “I don’t have time” aren’t going to be in the competent influencer’s vocabulary.
Well, if the influencer wants to minimize the effort and lower the value of their “personal brand” – then of course tell everyone how busy you are, and that you don’t have time to interact with lowly peons like “fans.” (yes, that is sarcasm)
WHY? well – assuming the customer isn’t a sociopath they will understand the the influencer/artist is “busy” and has time constraints – responding with “I’m busy” gets interpreted as “your concern/request is not important and/or valued” – and “I don’t have time” just comes across as “go away, you’re bothering me”
umm , and if the customer IS a sociopath – well, that is why the modern world is kinda scary sometimes. Be polite, but also be careful …
again, this is from a “business” non-intimate interpersonal communication point of view — if someone you have known for years tells you they are “busy” and can’t do “whatever” it PROBABLY means they respect you enough to be honest – i.e. they ARE busy, and offers to help might be appreciated but aren’t practical
oh, and the “signal to noise” ratio for that hypothetical influencer/artist should heavily favor the “signal” side – i.e. “useful information/entertainment” should heavily outweigh requests to join their various paid subscription options.
STILL “helpful and polite” go a long way.
Yes, there are countless real (and AI generated) artists out there trying to build a personal brand. Well managed “automatic responses” can be extremely useful – but they shouldn’t become a replacement for REAL “customer engagement”
the various “comic cons” become great case studies for real world brand management and “fan engagement” – “fans” are not only willing to stand in line to meet “celebrity” they pay for the privilege of a brief interaction.
The classic example of “fan engagement” is still athletes signing “whatever” for fans – again, folks willing to wait in line for a brief interaction.
BUT in both “comic con” and “athlete autographs” the “brand” has been built by the actor/athletes performances.
If the “brand” is a tree – then “fans” are the fruit of the tree – and “fan engagement” becomes an exercise in meeting expectations.
Oh, and “come see me in person” has been a good business plan since Mark Twain’s time.
Did I have a point?
well, no.
The joke about “agents” is that when they say “trust me” what they mean is “f*** you” – and when “customer management” says “I don’t have time” or “I’m busy” what they mean is “you should go somewhere else where they value your time and business”
