The “rich” in America are not a monolithic, unchanging class. A study by Thomas A. Garrett, economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, found that less than half of people in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still there in 2005. Such mobility is hardly surprising: A business school student, for instance, may have little money and high debts, but nine years later he or she could be earning a big Wall Street salary and bonus. Angry about inequality? Don’t blame the rich” by James Q. Wilson in The Washington Post
katespadeny:

step brightly
see street art from around the world
Cite Arrow reblogged from katespadeny
Fair enough, Wendy. We all know how annoying those intrusive journalists can be!

Fair enough, Wendy. We all know how annoying those intrusive journalists can be!

A press secretary’s nightmare: former Utah governor Jon Huntsman’s daughters have taken to Twitter to help his campaign in the Republican presidential primaries. They’re having a lot of fun at the expense of their dad’s opponents and getting plenty of media attention along the way.

A press secretary’s nightmare: former Utah governor Jon Huntsman’s daughters have taken to Twitter to help his campaign in the Republican presidential primaries. They’re having a lot of fun at the expense of their dad’s opponents and getting plenty of media attention along the way.

A smugly enamored couple sit in a restaurant, their hands clasped as they fret over the menu. The chicken, for instance: can the waitress tell them a little bit about its provenance? Of course she can, because this is the kind of cool restaurant in Portland, Oregon, where patrons regularly seek elaborate assurances about the virtuousness of their food. The waitress informs the couple that the place serves only local, free-range, “heritage-breed, woodland-raised chicken that’s been fed a diet of sheep’s milk, soy, and hazelnuts.” The conversation does not stop there. Peter asks if the hazelnuts, too, are local. Nance needs to know the size of the parcel of land where the chicken roamed freely. (Four acres.) The waitress excuses herself and returns to the table with a file folder and a photograph. “Here is the chicken you’ll be enjoying tonight,” she says, with therapeutic solemnity. “His name was Colin.” Peter seems appeased: “He looks like a happy little guy who runs around.” But then he wonders if the animal had “a lot of friends—other chickens as friends?” The waitress, who finds this a reasonable question, admits, “I don’t know that I can speak to that level of intimate knowledge about him. Stumptown Girl’, in The New Yorker (Portlandia: “Of the hipsters, by the hipsters, for the hipsters”)
Röthig goes on to describe what appeared to be a scrupulous and complicated investment strategy but was actually a mindless, rule-based investment strategy. IKB could “price a C.D.O. to the last basis point,” as one admiring observer told Risk in 2004. But this expertise was a kind of madness. “They would be really anal about, say, which subprime originator went into these C.D.O.’s,” says Nicholas Dunbar. “But it didn’t matter. They were arguing about bonds that would collapse from 100 down to 2 or 3. In a sense they were right: they bought the bonds that went to 3, rather than to 2.” As long as the bonds offered up by the Wall Street firms abided by the rules specified by IKB’s experts, they got hoovered into the Rhineland Funding portfolio without further inspection. Yet the bonds were becoming radically more risky because the loans that underpinned them were becoming crazier and crazier. It’s The Economy, Dummkopf!” by Michael Lewis in Vanity Fair
Let’s look ahead to what’s on the [Hollywood studio film] menu for this year: four adaptations of comic books. One prequel to an adaptation of a comic book. One sequel to a sequel to a movie based on a toy. One sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a movie based on an amusement-park ride. One prequel to a remake. Two sequels to cartoons. One sequel to a comedy. An adaptation of a children’s book. An adaptation of a Saturday-morning cartoon. One sequel with a 4 in the title. Two sequels with a 5 in the title. One sequel that, if it were inclined to use numbers, would have to have a 7 1/2 in the title.
‘The Day The Movies Died’, by Mark Harris
Let’s look ahead to what’s on the [Hollywood studio film] menu for this year: four adaptations of comic books. One prequel to an adaptation of a comic book. One sequel to a sequel to a movie based on a toy. One sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a movie based on an amusement-park ride. One prequel to a remake. Two sequels to cartoons. One sequel to a comedy. An adaptation of a children’s book. An adaptation of a Saturday-morning cartoon. One sequel with a 4 in the title. Two sequels with a 5 in the title. One sequel that, if it were inclined to use numbers, would have to have a 7 1/2 in the title.

The Day The Movies Died’, by Mark Harris

It is frustrating to provide food aid to a corrupt, inefficient, militarily aggressive regime that may steal much of what is donated, and will certainly use international support to maintain outsized spending on arms, nuclear bombs, and missiles. Yet hunger cannot be an instrument of international diplomacy. The most pragmatic and humanitarian step the Obama Administration can take to promote stability during North Korea’s political transition is to deliver needed food to the country’s disenfranchised population—and as soon as is practical. North Korea’s Hunger”, The New Yorker
Musan’s proximity to the Chinese border made it easier for her family to obtain food and engage in trade. Song-hee’s mother sold socks, both Chinese- and North Korean-made, at the market. Her father, like most of the men in Musan, worked in the iron mines. The family had cleared a plot of land on a hillside outside town in order to grow vegetables, an illegal but common practice in North Korea. Their various sources of income allowed them to eat regular meals of white rice, the staple of the relatively well-off, while their neighbors could eat only corn. Once or twice a month, Song-hee got a fried egg on top of a bowl of rice. Occasionally, she could go to the market and buy a banana, her favorite food. Her proudest possession was an MP3 player that had Chinese pop music on it. She could recharge the battery on the rare evenings that the electricity at home was working. From this brilliant, heartbreaking 2010 New Yorker article on life in North Korea
On the value of corporate values

By Alex Campbell

One aspect of modern corporate personality disorder that I’ve never understood is the obsession with codifying an organisation’s ‘values’.

We’ve all seen the annual reports emblazoned with stock images of multi-ethnic people holding hands alongside headings that say things like “Working together with shared values”.

We’ve all marvelled at the clumsy propaganda that lines the walls of large corporations, blaring nonsense statements such as “Humility with ability”.

We’ve all sat in workshops where the leaders of a business brainstorm its values, inevitably settling on five or six bland, uncontroversial words. “Honesty”. “Passion”. “Creativity”. “Collaboration”. “Courage”.

And we’ve all seen the press releases issued by companies that get themselves into trouble and try to talk their way out of it by reiterating their commitment to values of “integrity” and “respect”.

I have always believed that this pursuit of synthetic organisational ‘values’ is as bizarre as it is pointless.

Here is an example of a corporate value statement that I’ve chosen at random, taken from the website of one of the world’s largest companies:

Our Values

As a company, and as individuals, we value integrity, honesty, openness, personal excellence, constructive self-criticism, continual self-improvement, and mutual respect. We are committed to our customers and partners and have a passion for technology. We take on big challenges, and pride ourselves on seeing them through. We hold ourselves accountable to our customers, shareholders, partners, and employees by honoring our commitments, providing results, and striving for the highest quality.

Can you guess what company this is? I’m sure you can’t. I wouldn’t have been able to either. This ridiculously broad statement could have been from pretty much any company on earth.

Let’s break it down line by line.

Are there any companies or individuals who would really say they’re opposed to “integrity” or “honesty”?

Can we not take it for granted that “openness” and “personal excellence” are expected of corporate citizens?

Of course, this company is “committed to our customers and partners”. That must be reassuring for its customers and its partners.

This company has “a passion for technology”, unlike all those companies that don’t care about technology and still send inter-office correspondence via tubes.

This company takes on “big challenges” - like reading their values statement without falling asleep or wanting to jam an HR person into a stationery cupboard.

This company holds itself “accountable” by “honoring commitments”, “providing results”, and “striving for the highest quality”. In other words, they do their jobs.

All in all, this company’s values statement is a laundry list of meaningless platitudes. I wonder how many employees of this company would even know this values statement exists, or would care, or could possibly remember any part of it if asked?

If you’re interested, the company is Microsoft. I took their values statement verbatim from here: http://www.microsoft.com/about/en/us/default.aspx. And I don’t mean to pick on Microsoft, although they’re an easy target. No doubt almost every global company has at some point created an equally bland and vague list of supposed values.

Of course, not all organisations’ values statements are completely meaningless. For contrast, compare Microsoft’s values statement with Google’s famous mantra: “Don’t be evil”. Google’s mantra is a simple, memorable guiding principle that every Googler can use every day when they’re making decisions. It is specific, it is meaningful, and it is three words instead of Microsoft’s seventy-three words.

What’s most interesting about corporate values is how dissonant an organisation’s stated values usually are with its reality. Often a business’s stated values are actually a reflection of its deepest fears and most profound weaknesses.

A business that feels the need to remind everyone that it is “Courageous” is usually deeply conservative.

A business that talks about how it values “Honesty” is usually mired in back-stabbing bureaucracy.

A business that talks about the important of “Excellence” is often profoundly disfunctional.

A business that constantly tells us it is “Customer oriented” usually has a deep and abiding contempt for its customers.

A business that harps on about “Transparency” has many shameful secrets that it wants to keep concealed.

Ultimately, the reality is that actions speak far louder than words. An organisation’s true values are reflected in how it behaves, not what it says.

True values cannot be set in a planning session or communicated on a PowerPoint slide. They cannot be contrived by a committee. And posting them on an intranet or a noticeboard doesn’t make them real.

The only thing that can make corporate values real is behaviour, and in particular the example set by an organisation’s leaders.

So my perhaps naive suggestion would be to forget about bland statements of corporate values and just say, “Let’s all behave like the decent adult human beings that we are, and focus on making great stuff for our customers to buy.”

theeconomist:

Daily chart: video games. The gaming industry is now more than twice the size of the recorded-music  industry, nearly a quarter more than the magazine business and about  three-fifths the size of the film industry. It is growing faster than any other form of media.

theeconomist:

Daily chart: video games. The gaming industry is now more than twice the size of the recorded-music industry, nearly a quarter more than the magazine business and about three-fifths the size of the film industry. It is growing faster than any other form of media.

Cite Arrow reblogged from theeconomist
heyitsnoah:

Famous logos set in the world’s least favorite font.
(via Comic Sans Project)

heyitsnoah:

Famous logos set in the world’s least favorite font.

(via Comic Sans Project)

Cite Arrow reblogged from heyitsnoah

“When somebody gets on an exploding boat to come over here - they’re willing to do that to get to Australia - you’re missing out on some really good Australians if you don’t let them in.”

- P.J. O’Rourke

Address is Approximate

You know, one of the things that really hurt Apple was after I left John Sculley got a very serious disease. It’s the disease of thinking that a really great idea is 90% of the work. And if you just tell all these other people “here’s this great idea,” then of course they can go off and make it happen.

And the problem with that is that there’s just a tremendous amount of craftsmanship in between a great idea and a great product. And as you evolve that great idea, it changes and grows. It never comes out like it starts because you learn a lot more as you get into the subtleties of it. And you also find there are tremendous tradeoffs that you have to make. There are just certain things you can’t make electrons do. There are certain things you can’t make plastic do. Or glass do. Or factories do. Or robots do.

Designing a product is keeping five thousand things in your brain and fitting them all together in new and different ways to get what you want. And every day you discover something new that is a new problem or a new opportunity to fit these things together a little differently.

Steve Jobs: The parable of the stones - Apple 2.0 - Fortune Tech (via ninakix)
Cite Arrow reblogged from ninakix