Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Consumer confidence vs House Prices

I for one believe that most housing in the US is way over-priced. I'm currently living in KC and I'm seeing some "reasonable" prices. But I think it's worth noting that I'm making twice the median income and I can't see buying anything out here.

That's right, my wife doesn't work, so together, we make the median income for a two-person family and the cost of owning our own place is prohibitive. Of course, house prices are dropping, which makes me feel great, maybe I'll be able to afford one soon, but it looks like people aren't. I just found this graph on swivel (which is a pretty cool site BTW).

Case-Schiller Home Prices and Consumer Confidence Index

Of course, in the grand world of causation vs correlation, I'm going to chalk up the drop in confidence to more factors than just dropping house prices. If anything, it's likely the economy in general mixed with a healthy dose of "back-to-reality". For great helping of "back-to-reality", check out this post on MDJ:

California couple, family of 8, 100k / year:
  • No medical insurance for the themselves OR the kids.
  • $135,000 in credit card debt.
  • Two mortgages totaling $658,000.
  • Large mortgage with payments of $1800/month, but payments will increase to $3300/month in a few months.
  • They have 3 cars, 2 of which are leased, the other one they own. The cost is $1700/month.
  • Wife spends $300-$400/month at Starbucks (It was the wifes morning routine).
  • $60/week on tanning and manicures
  • $4k on hair extensions in the past 2 years.
  • Constantly shopping.
  • The wife would regularly buy brand new clothes for the kids, then have a garage sale a month later to sell the “used” items at pennies to the dollar. (This one blew me away)
Scary stuff.

Maybe it's time to practice "positive cash-flow techniques". Of course, YMMV.

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

MS Office by subscription

Here's the news link from ZD NET:
New Microsoft Office subscription bundle to hit in mid-July

Basically they're bundling several basic services together. Some are comparing it to Google's free stuff, but it's also comparable to Mac's "paid-for" stuff:
includes a version of Office Home and Student 2007; Windows Live OneCare,
Microsoft’s PC management/security bundle; a few Windows Live
communication/collaboration services; and Office Live Workspace, Microsoft’s
online-collaboration add-on to Office.

I talked about this previously. And I honestly think that subscriptions are the future of all. Obviously, the "talkback" forum was filled with open-source people who don't "get it".

But I think that the populace is finally ready for the concept that everything on their computer is comprised of "services" and that software is alive.

Unfortunately, MS missed one big piece here: Outlook. The early adopters who will want this service are the same type of people who will also want Outlook.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Counter offers when leaving?

Inspired by a couple of good links, original post here with further thoughts at Ron's wisdom and Frugal Dad.

Lots of great links and all kinds of neat ideas and lists of reasons “not to accept a counter-offer”.

But I think the reason is simple.

You don’t want to work for anyone who feels that the counter-offer is a good idea.

Sure it’s an ego boost for you, but it’s really desperate management decision. Do you want to bank your future on desperate management?

The game is simple, an employee generates X revenue and the company pays that employee Y, where Y is X minus expenses and a risk-adjusted profit margin. In fact, it’s a lot like the stock market (actually, it is the stock market, but that’s a different discussion). Either way, the goal of the employee is to maximize the hourly yield for the work they’re willing to do, they want to maximize Y. The goal of the employer is to maximize profit, they want to maximize X and minimize Y.

The problem of course is risk. If you “over-minimize” Y, then you drain X (lower productivity) or you lose X all together (employee leaves). In the grand scheme, employers have been doing a lot to minimize Y: reduction in pension, reduction in health care allowances, no more 20-year gold watches or 10-year sabbaticals, etc. But many employers still insist on making some silly decisions with Y.

In Patrick’s case (the original poster), the competition was willing to pay 30% more Y. Assuming that Patrick could generate an equivalent X, the company felt that Patrick was a small enough risk to pay him 30% more.

That’s a very big difference in evaluation. That’s the same thing as me thinking a stock is fairly-priced at $100 when you think it’s fairly-priced at $130. Of course, we commonly hear about 20 & 30-somethings jumping jobs to make these types of pay raises because it's the only way to get a raise.

There are typically three reasons this happens:

  1. The company is doing poorly and cannot afford to pay the employees more. Or they’re likewise not generating money from having the employee around.
  2. The company is trying to extract as much profit as possible from the employee or using the employee’s profits to fund a different venture.
  3. The company really has no clue (typically poor management). Any/all of: they don’t know the market rates, they don’t know which employees are generating money or losing money, they don’t have a growth plan, they don’t have a succession plan, they don’t understand what the employee really wants…etc

In a case like Patrick’s I’m sensing a heavy dose of #2, with a little #3.

What I don’t understand is why they suddenly perceived me as valuable as soon as I mentioned leaving?

It’s up to management to manage and mitigate risks and they really blew this one. (And remember the profits they make are their “risk-adjusted” piece of the pie) Not only did they underestimate your value by 30%, they also underestimated the value of their counter-offer by another 10%. That they would even go back to “up the ante” again means that they were still suffering from a #2 brain fart.

So back to the original thesis. You don’t want to work for these guys.

  • If they suffer from #1, then they’re likely laying people off and even if you don’t lose your job, you won’t be getting a good pay raise.
  • If they suffer from #2 and they’re underpaying by 30% (or more), then they’re not showing a lot of foresight.
  • If they suffer from #3, then you’re resting the fate of your next raise, your next promotion and even your next paycheck on the back of someone who doesn’t have a clue.

You don’t want to be working for these guys. You want to be working for proactive managers. You want people who have vision, who can see problems before they arrive. You want people who lead, people who hire more staff before everyone gets too busy, people who give pay raises before you have to ask for them, send you to training before you need it.

So if your employer makes a counter-offer, they are not one of these people. They’re one of the hordes of reactive managers. Just because they’ve finally realized they’re behind and can afford to pay you more doesn’t mean that they’ve changed their ways and stopped being bad managers.

So don’t accept a counter-offer when resigning your job, you don’t want to work for the type of people who make counter-offers.

Of course, ymmv.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Backlash starts against 'sexy' databases

Backlash starts against 'sexy' databases

Wow, actually a good summary of this new "anti-database" movement. Of course, the whole controversy all comes back to one guy: Michael Stonebraker. He started the storm in a few different places (and seems totally misguided).

But they, it's big enough that it reached the high scalability site. Link has lots of useful information and one great quote:
SimpleDB shifts work out of the database and onto programmers which is why the SimpleDB programming model sucks: it requires a lot more programming to do simple things...Programmers like problems they can solve with more programming.
I think that last line needs to be modified: Inefficient programmer like problems they can solve with more programming. I don't like making a bunch of problems for myself, especially when it comes to useless optimization. The goal here is to program solutions that require less programming in the future. You build tools that extend your thoughts and write more code for you.

That's what an RDMS does, it's just a collection of code that manages data so that you don't have to. Seems kind of foolish to pretend that we can do better at this than the pros.