Wall Street Change offers simple, logical solutions to tough economic problems
that appear to have been caused by Wall Street Investment Fraud.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Oil, the rising economy sinker. When the economy is bad, oil is priced lower, when the economy starts to heat up, oil prices go up.

Oil prices generally go lower when the economy goes bad. Oil prices seem to increase at the first sign of any economic activity, thus squashing any real economic momentum.

Even if the economy is able to survive higher oil prices, some of the additional oil profits that are created from higher oil prices may be being used to simply seed the worlds stock markets to artifical highs, before they crash again.

Gotta get the alternative energy products humping so we can get out of this lose, lose paradigm.

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Undercover Boss GSI Commerce Michael Rubin inadvertently exposes why the economy is in the tank and may never get better.

I was watching the Sixty Minutes story on the diminishing water supply in Kenya that could mean the end of the annual wildebeast run. Right after Sixty Minutes came Undercover Boss, and suddenly I saw why there are so many out of work people and why they may never find work. 

The hour long Undercover Boss episode featured Michael Rubin, (who runs GSI Commerce) and his interaction with several of his own workers while "undercover" as a new hiree.

Her name is Shannon and it rhymes with Cannon, and if you watched her pack GSI Commerce boxes one after another, you might just say, All Star softball pitcher potential. Shannon was packing boxes so fast that it indeed looked like the videotape was speeded up. 

Shannon, in my opinion worked twice as fast as what one would consider acceptable speed. Shannon's job for the day was to teach the new employee, Undercover Boss and owner of the company, Michael Rubin - who was masquerading as a new hire, how to pack boxes, quickly.

At one point, Michael Rubin asked Shannon how many boxes she could box and ship per hour. Shannon responded thatthe minimum requirement is 90 packed boxes per hour, but she normally averaged 110-130 per hour. I don't recall what she exactly said, but it was a 110 on the low end, and many more on the high end.

I noticed something else about the segment with Shannon, there seemed to be boxing work stations that were empty. This got me to thinking, if Shannon is the fastest boxer at 110 to 130 per hour, and the minimum boxes packed per hour to keep ones job was 90, it was clear to me that 90 is too high of an "average".

Shannon to me looked like she was twice as fast as a normal boxer. Ergo, one half of 120 would be 60 boxes per hour. The average boxer should be boxing 60 boxes per hour, 75 boxes per hour would solid, 90 boxes would be super fast, and 100 and over would be super human speed.

Michael Rubin got fired from his own company after just one day because he was expected to box 90 boxes per hour and he probably never did more than 45 to 60 in an hour. It seems to me that someone who works as fast as Shannon should make more money than someone who works at Michaels pace. Instead of one speed fits all, why not have pay scale categories?
Assuming Shannon is making at least 15-17 dollars an hour, pay Michael 8.50 an hour for boxing 50 boxes, and offer a pay scale for more boxes averaged per hour. 60 boxes would equal 10 bucks an hour, 70 boxes would equal 12.00 bucks an hour, 80 boxes would equal 14.00 bucks an hour, 90 boxes would equal 16.00 bucks an hour, 100 boxes would equal 18.00 bucks an hour, 110 boxes would equal 20 bucks an hour, 120 boxes would equal 23 bucks an hour.
I bet the minimum boxing requirement per hour was not always 90 boxes an hour. I bet it has slowly gone up over the years so that the executives could get bigger and bigger year end bonuses. The result is the company gets more and more selective in whom they hire, putting more pressure on fewer workers until those fewer workers burn out. Shannon may average over 100 boxes per hour, but the moment she cuts her finger and her finger bleeds, then what?

Does it take two workers to replace Shannon? Where do those workers come from if all they do is hire Shannon's only?

After the company hires only "Shannon's", they eventually discover that riding someone in fifth gear all the time wears them out PREMATURELY. Suddenly a few Shannon's quit, and there is a huge dip in production and profits drop. An executive is fired as a result, and another one is hired.

The new executive decides to drop the minimum productivity rate from 90 boxes an hour to 60 boxes an hour (where it probably was a few years ago). After a while, the new executive starts to play the same "raise the minimum boxes per hour game" that the prior executive played. 

The company now has a big enough pool of reliable employees who  can handle 60 boxes per hour, plus a few who work a lot faster, so the executive slowly starts to raise the per hour box quota rate. The executive now gets rewarded for turning the boxing division around, and the previous process of ramping up the hourly quota keeps repeating itself.

It is silly to expect a person to do any job as fast on the first day as they would do it after one week's worth of experience, one month, the sixth month, and after the first year.

If GSI commerce expects a new worker to produce at a B+ A- level by the end of day one, the U.S. economy will never recover because not every worker out there is a B+ A- level producer, especially from day one.

One more thing about Shannon, if she can box 120 boxes in an hour, and the company charges 6 bucks for shipping and handling. Shannon is generating 720 dollars worth of value per hour. Yet there are several hidden costs than enable Shannon to be hired so she can work and have benefits.

Isn't it interesting that a worker possibly generating 720 dollars of wealth per hour, even after we subtract 320 dollars per hour for her work station, power, boxes tape, space, electricity, storage space, shipping costs and handling of her boxes, and so on, might Shannon still be generating 400 dollars of wealth per hour minus the cost of her pay and benefits?

If so, profits can still be made hiring workers who aren't as fast. A mix of Shannons and those who are slower is the perfect blend, and one that fits economic landscape as well.

Monday, December 13, 2010

The Internet has changed capitalism forever, unfortunately the rich elite just don't get it and we're all going to pay a huge price because of it.

Securitization in the foreclosure industry is what happens when there is too much money on top of the economic ponzie scheme and not enough investment opportunities to go around.

Until interest rate dividends are inverted, and the poorest receive the highest rate of return on their savings, and the richest receive the smallest rate of return on their savings, we are doomed.

The internet has created a communication efficiency paradigm that cuts profit margins because of the consumer ease of cost comparisons. Because of the internet, the days of higher profit margins are basically over, unless slave labor is added in to the formula.

You want huge profits, own part of a satellite, another huge JOB KILLER. Every time a satellite sends a signal to a new subscriber, another angel gets its wings cut off. Nowadays, huge profits mean someone has figured out a way to produce the same product with less people, aka, digitalizing the process. Increased efficiency means less overall jobs, yet the banksters continue to try and indenture their customers with obscene interest rate charges.

Rich people need to back off and simply PROTECT what they already have, and leave the remaining profit crumbs for the masses to survive off of, if they don't, we are all doomed, sooner, rather than later.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Is the U.S. Government Throwing a "Screen Pass" to deceive us with their ill Conceived Government Home Foreclosure Programs such as HAMP and EHLP?

Is the Federal Government Throwing a "Screen Pass" to deceive us with their ill Conceived Government Home Foreclosure Programs such as HAMP and EHLP?

Do you know how a screen pass works in football? The quarterback drops back to pass and the offensive linemen pretend to not let the defensive lineman rush past.

The defensive lineman gleefully rush in thinking they have outsmarted the offensive lineman and are about to sack the quarterback, when the quarterback just lofts the ball over their heads to the running back, who the defensive lineman gleefully ignored as they put their entire attention on sacking the quarterback. The running back suddenly has several of his own guys in front of him, and the defense way behind him in his rear view mirror.

When done correctly, the quarterback is able to get the pass off and also avoid the pass rush, leaving the defense to literally run in circles trying to catch the running back that they just let go by.

In many ways, the current home foreclosure debate has resulted in a lot of time spent rushing the quarterback, aka the government programs and the government rhetoric over whether the proper transfer of title was legally done, but not that much time on the actual real harm (aka the pass to the running back) that has already resulted from the improper transfer.
Is it possible that these federal programs and the ridiculous rhetoric over HAMP and EHLP are being thrown out there to create rancor and discord among "experts" on both sides of the issue so that issues that really matter, like what is a predatory loan, and the changing of terms without the expressed, written, consent of the homeowner, get obfuscated?

Share Gadget