Note:Only two months between posts...I'm getting better!
This past week, everyone's been talking about AIG and it's bonus packages. There was also minor discontent with the AIG payout to banks, which is slightly linked to this whole affair. I can understand the concern of the average american regarding these payments and bonuses...for about a day. I fully expected them to snap back to their senses after a good night's sleep...but as the week ended with no end to the protests, my amusement turned to discomfort. I read about the government proposing new taxes targeted at taking back the bonus money and I wonder if we aren't back in the dark ages.
Many issues here. Let's touch on the lighter side of this whole affair first. The media as expected have really done it this time. To see what I mean, I refer you to the following webcomic:
1000 times
The everyday cynics will see why this is not just funny, but sad as well. Because you see my friends(those of you who go through life wearing the ridiculous rosy tinted glasses), this is how easy it is to manipulate the way people think. Oh, I'm not making things up. Sometimes, it can be really hard to tell the difference, even when you're told it's different. I refer to exhibit B:
dollars and sense
Ok funnies aside, let's get on to the main theme: the bonus packages for executives and employees. Remember how we smirked when Tommy Lee Jones said these lines in 'men in black'"(well I did anyway)
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
People ARE dumb. At least, in a mob. There's this self-reinforcement in mobs where the members assure each other whatever idiotic theory they have is correct. And america right now is a mob. A big one. OMG AIG EXECS ARE GETTING BONUSES FOR LOSING MONEY! INBAL! NERF! H4X!
Well screw you America. Those people DESERVE the bonus. They have contracts that say they deserve the bonus. AIG owes them the money, and they got it fair and square. It's a fucking contract. You see, what's scary is...you KNOW I'm right, you idiotic Americans. You KNOW they deserve the money. Refusing to pay them would be like refusing to pay for your house after living in it for a year because you think it's overpriced. (an action I'm informed is not out of question for our peers in US)
You can see that Americans clearly got their logic warped here, so consumed with indignition. The simple proof is the bank payout referred to in the first paragraph. Hello...AIG OWES the banks money. The bailout was given to AIG so it wouldn't go under. And to prevent that, it needs to pay off it's debts. And you're complaining they use the bailout money to pay off debts? HUH? Oh I see...you don't mind them paying off AMERICAN banks. It's the European banks getting a slice of your money you object to. Kind of unfair, but strangely familiar coming from you guys.
See, I don't care how the execs performed. I don't care if the banks getting payments from AIG are run by osama's minions. AIG owes money, and needs to repay it's debts now that it has money. How would you like it if you worked as a contract worker for a year with the understanding that at the end of the year, you'll be paid in one lump sum...only this year, the company didn't quite make as much money as the last, and you're told to fuck off when you ask for your paycheck? Or from the banks' perspective, you buy insurance from a foreign insurer...meet with a car accident, but can't get your payout from the insurer because you're not Nigerian?
When you hire someone, you tell him he doesn't get paid if he doesn't perform to par. That kind of arrangement is so strange you'll probably need a lengthy contract to cover it. You can fire him after 3 months for lack of performance, but you still have to pay him for the 3 months.
Ok, I can still handle this with amusement as long as it was just the rednecks imploding with anger as I first assumed. Then I hear the government wants to get involved and create taxes specifically targeting those AIG execs. The United States government, supposedly leader of the free world, wants to target specific people of their bonuses! Bonuses, I repeat, they totally deserve(it's in their fucking contracts)! That's like creating a special tax bracket only for warren buffet because he made money off some government deals. That's not a powerful enough analogy... It's kind of like kicking your pal in the nuts and robbing his wallet because you just lost money to him in a round of poker. He won it fair and square, but dammit, it's YOUR money(and he cracked your aces with kings to boot).
The next couple of weeks should be interesting. Wonder if we'll see more idiotic mob behaviour.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Dinner with Changs
Oh, dinner was ok.
It's what I observed during dinner that I want to talk about here.
First, the background:
We were in this 15 seater restuarant. Seats were arranged side by side bar counter style. It was a relatively popular restuarant, so the queue can get pretty long. Changs and I waited about 45 mins to get seats ourselves.
So this group of 4(2 couples) were waiting in line when 2 seats opened up. The gentlemen urged the ladies to take their seats first as the couple eating next to the empty seats appeared to be finishing up. The proprietor of the store(obviously more experienced in these matters) advised against it as they frown on...nay....absolutely hate people who change seats as it screws up their order procederes.
Being smart independent youngsters, the ladies took their seat anyway. Then, disaster struck. Across the room from the girls, another couple vacated their seats. The two guys had no choice but to occupy those seats. 5 mins later, the seats next to the girls emptied, and the guys naturally requested for a change of seats. They were surprised to be told they could not change their seats.
Why did I find this scenario interesting? Well, it illustrates perfectly why some people act like perfect morons and some come across as inflexible assholes. Let's look at it from the customer's point of view first:
1) two seats are open. They have already waited an hour outside the store. Obviously they are reluctant to wait longer for a 4 seater to open up.
2)ladies first(which was downright silly btw). There's being polite, and then there's just poor planning. The girls sat down first
3)The guys got a seat far removed from their female companions
4)A seat opens up next to the girls.
5)Logic dictates that it's natural the guys should be allowed to sit next to the girls, right?
BUT from the store's POV:
1) two seats are open. They want to be effecient. It is not effecient for them to sit 2 people who will obviously not be eating at optimal speed if they have to wait for their companions to get a seat. They prefer an isolated couple to get the two seats, and warn the party of 4 that they may get split up
2)party of 4 appears to weigh the merits and decide to split anyway
3)everyone's eventually seated. Crisis averted
4)Guys ask for change of seats.
5)Store obviously refuses, seeing as they have ALREADY warned the guys this would happen and they took the risk anyway.
Viewing the situation on both sides, it's obvious that the store was right not to reseat them. If you're still wondering why the store was right, you need to think about this again.(hint: people need to be made to pay the price if they choose to take risks)
But we face these situations on a daily basis in a different form. I guess my point here is to try to look at a situation from the other party's side more often.
For eg, how often have you concluded that decisions made by your superior made absolutely no sense and was totally ineffecient? Most of the time, it's because you're standing on a different level and can't see all the balls in the air. Your boss may choose to keep you in the air longer than neccessary simply because he needs time to catch the other balls. He's ineffecient only from your viewpoint. That doesn't mean he's incompetent. He just has other stuff to consider.
Another example would be the government. I've lately been reading alot of complaints about government policies. People have been huge on sarcasm when it comes to counter-intuitive policy making. It would help alot of these people actually stopped to think from the gov's perspective once in a while.
It's what I observed during dinner that I want to talk about here.
First, the background:
We were in this 15 seater restuarant. Seats were arranged side by side bar counter style. It was a relatively popular restuarant, so the queue can get pretty long. Changs and I waited about 45 mins to get seats ourselves.
So this group of 4(2 couples) were waiting in line when 2 seats opened up. The gentlemen urged the ladies to take their seats first as the couple eating next to the empty seats appeared to be finishing up. The proprietor of the store(obviously more experienced in these matters) advised against it as they frown on...nay....absolutely hate people who change seats as it screws up their order procederes.
Being smart independent youngsters, the ladies took their seat anyway. Then, disaster struck. Across the room from the girls, another couple vacated their seats. The two guys had no choice but to occupy those seats. 5 mins later, the seats next to the girls emptied, and the guys naturally requested for a change of seats. They were surprised to be told they could not change their seats.
Why did I find this scenario interesting? Well, it illustrates perfectly why some people act like perfect morons and some come across as inflexible assholes. Let's look at it from the customer's point of view first:
1) two seats are open. They have already waited an hour outside the store. Obviously they are reluctant to wait longer for a 4 seater to open up.
2)ladies first(which was downright silly btw). There's being polite, and then there's just poor planning. The girls sat down first
3)The guys got a seat far removed from their female companions
4)A seat opens up next to the girls.
5)Logic dictates that it's natural the guys should be allowed to sit next to the girls, right?
BUT from the store's POV:
1) two seats are open. They want to be effecient. It is not effecient for them to sit 2 people who will obviously not be eating at optimal speed if they have to wait for their companions to get a seat. They prefer an isolated couple to get the two seats, and warn the party of 4 that they may get split up
2)party of 4 appears to weigh the merits and decide to split anyway
3)everyone's eventually seated. Crisis averted
4)Guys ask for change of seats.
5)Store obviously refuses, seeing as they have ALREADY warned the guys this would happen and they took the risk anyway.
Viewing the situation on both sides, it's obvious that the store was right not to reseat them. If you're still wondering why the store was right, you need to think about this again.(hint: people need to be made to pay the price if they choose to take risks)
But we face these situations on a daily basis in a different form. I guess my point here is to try to look at a situation from the other party's side more often.
For eg, how often have you concluded that decisions made by your superior made absolutely no sense and was totally ineffecient? Most of the time, it's because you're standing on a different level and can't see all the balls in the air. Your boss may choose to keep you in the air longer than neccessary simply because he needs time to catch the other balls. He's ineffecient only from your viewpoint. That doesn't mean he's incompetent. He just has other stuff to consider.
Another example would be the government. I've lately been reading alot of complaints about government policies. People have been huge on sarcasm when it comes to counter-intuitive policy making. It would help alot of these people actually stopped to think from the gov's perspective once in a while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
