youthathletics wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 9:54 am
Then when two scientists differ, we merely discount the one as a crazy fool, to make us feel better. No one is arguing things can not be done and to to be good stewards...its the constant barrage of we need your money, we must tax you to save your life......scare tactics.
I will agree and disagree with you here. I agree in the sense that the politicization of this has mucked up a really interesting and important question.
Where I disagree is the notion that it is an even split. (when 2 scientists disagree). There is a an overwhelmingly large consensus among scientists that global warming is occurring. While that majority agree a few do not and that is ok as it causes those in the majority to continue to refine their positions and support their conclusions (same with the minority). This is how science is supposed to work, imho.
I have no idea why this is political other than lobbying efforts. Not that different from big tobacco. All one has to do is look out the window at all the cars on the road and count the number of people on the planet in 2020 versus 1920. To think man does not contribute to what is a simple feedback model makes no sense to me. I don’t have an answer. Many folks answer is basically God will take care of it.
I guess I can see how it is not political. The science aside, you are asking people to alter large segments of their lives, asking the government to spend large amounts of money and having wild claims thrown about by both sides and not expect it to become political?
Care to explain what you mean by simple feedback model?
The science shouldn’t be political. What to do about it is a different story.
That is the entire point.....there have not been any substantive, tangible ideas that can be measured to prove their worth. Sure....LEED buildings, and things like the Montreal Protocol make us feel good and provide 'some' sense of accomplishment in doing good, but most of those items are just money makers and lobbying success stories.
We should have gotten on it 20-25 years ago. It’s like saving for college when a kid is born versus waiting until they are 12. Or starting retirement savings at 50 instead of 35. Anyway, you and I may not be around to see it.
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:45 pm
by Bart
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:21 pm
The science shouldn’t be political. What to do about it is a different story.
Nice videos. I get what is feedback loop, work with them all the time(usually negative). I personally, again personally, do not see the climate as a simple feedback loop. Certainly a feedback loop that our actions have contributed to but to what extent and how this all feeds back on itself is what we need to figure out. If it were all that simple then our models would be spot on wouldn't they? I guess I am just quibbling about the word simple, it is all good. Thanks.
I wish there was no politics in science but I just could not say that with a straight face.
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:21 pm
The science shouldn’t be political. What to do about it is a different story.
Nice videos. I get what is feedback loop, work with them all the time(usually negative). I personally, again personally, do not see the climate as a simple feedback loop. Certainly a feedback loop that our actions have contributed to but to what extent and how this all feeds back on itself is what we need to figure out. If it were all that simple then our models would be spot on wouldn't they? I guess I am just quibbling about the word simple, it is all good. Thanks.
I wish there was no politics in science but I just could not say that with a straight face.
The concept of whether we have an impact is easy for me to see. I look outside my office building and see a steady stream of cars on the highway every day, all day, 24 hours / 7 Days a week. What’s the population on the planet in 2020 versus 1820? But I agree the planet will take care of itself. Nothing like a good virus to wipe out 1/3 of the world’s population.
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:18 pmhttp://www.drroyspencer.com/category/blogarticle/ Some more far right wing propaganda from the good doctor. he took time off from stoning bad Christians to post this. To those of you FLP folks who are naïve and uneducated scroll down to the comments.
The Aussies need to dress up a Koala as Smokey the Bear, clear more underbrush, do more controlled burns & clear cut fire breaks to protect population centers. ...CA too.
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:18 pmhttp://www.drroyspencer.com/category/blogarticle/ Some more far right wing propaganda from the good doctor. he took time off from stoning bad Christians to post this. To those of you FLP folks who are naïve and uneducated scroll down to the comments.
The Aussies need to dress up a Koala as Smokey the Bear, clear more underbrush, do more controlled burns & clear cut fire breaks to protect population centers. ...CA too.
glad you got a chuckle, youth, but did you bother to read past the first paragraph?
As climate change worsens, so will the fires
The bushfires in Australia are never going to go away but will get worse. That's according to Justin Leonard, a researcher dedicated to understanding bushfires and land management. Bushfires are ignited both naturally and by humans, but Leonard called them "inevitable."
Climate change only worsens the conditions for fires, he said. Droughts and hotter weather only make for more intense fires and longer fire seasons — changes that are already being observed, he said.
Under worsening conditions, fires are harder to put out: They grow too big to get to safely, and even aerial suppression isn't necessarily possible because of the wind. So, what does that mean for indigenous fire techniques?
They'll still help, Leonard said. Areas that have undergone preventative burning lead to less intense fires. But the problem is, under the worst of conditions, the fire will still be able to burn straight through the land, despite any preventative measures.
Which means that towns are still in danger.
"We need to solve that inevitability by effective township design," Leonard said.
In other words, indigenous burning techniques aren't enough on their own. Communities will need to properly manicure adjacent forests, landscape their own private property, and have effective house design and maintenance, Leonard said.
I certainly have no issue with working the problem, best folks can figure out...but as a dismissal of climate change?
Nope. That's what drew the rolling eyes.
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 6:46 pm
A hallmark of today’s Democrat is the complete inability to debate ideas that are considered antithetical to their philosophy. I don’t even know who Spencer is, but TLD’s response to the post is a great reflection of the crisis afflicting the Democrats.
Exactly...you don't even know who Spencer is.
Exactly but yet again exactly opposite what your takeaway is.
I am far more interested in ideas and much less in people. TDS’ reply is an immediate pivot to the person rather than the idea.
TLD’s reply seems to imply an immediate disregard of anything this ‘Spencer’ has to offer. This is what we call “cancel culture”. It’s an insidious devaluation of the human and all of the complexity of same.
TDS is a similar construct.
"we call"
You choose to be ignorant, you choose to ignore other's points and questions.
Got it.
Your posts are a clear reminder why you were susceptible to TDS. And I’ll stray from my self-imposed rule to focus only on the idea and not the person (not you per se but those like you).
I have generally found that TDS manifests itself most glaringly in people who are most often adding personal insults to those who refuse to go along with the echo chamber. If I were a psychologist, this would be an area I’d study. It’s fascinating. If you go through the posts on this board, you’d find that the people quick to lob personal insults (such as ‘ignorant’ in the post above) are loudly anti-Trump. I’m not sure if the cause and effect are interchangeable, perhaps Trump’s character compels this behavior?, but yet there it is, always.
My characterization of you as ‘always being incorrect’ could also be perceived as an insult and I regret that. My real point is you do seem to be unable to see beyond the lens of Trump on almost every issue, causing you to miss the basket nearly every post.
Again, you actually ignore what I wrote...I haven't mentioned Trump in this discussion.
That's your fixation.
Here's the thing, you actually claim to be ignorant, as if that's a good thing.
Perhaps you are correct that those who dislike Trump vehemently (as I indeed do) do not think being ignorant is a good thing.
BTW, you ignored my question about what assets you think the US government owns that could be borrowed against or liquidated.
Your answer?
I don't claim to be ignorant of everything; I also don't claim to be an expert at everything (an affliction commonly seen on online boards).
The below will help understand that the US is not defenseless in figuring out it's debt of $23 trillion since it has a positive net worth of over $150 trillion.
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:18 pmhttp://www.drroyspencer.com/category/blogarticle/ Some more far right wing propaganda from the good doctor. he took time off from stoning bad Christians to post this. To those of you FLP folks who are naïve and uneducated scroll down to the comments.
The Aussies need to dress up a Koala as Smokey the Bear, clear more underbrush, do more controlled burns & clear cut fire breaks to protect population centers. ...CA too.
glad you got a chuckle, youth, but did you bother to read past the first paragraph?
As climate change worsens, so will the fires
The bushfires in Australia are never going to go away but will get worse. That's according to Justin Leonard, a researcher dedicated to understanding bushfires and land management. Bushfires are ignited both naturally and by humans, but Leonard called them "inevitable."
Climate change only worsens the conditions for fires, he said. Droughts and hotter weather only make for more intense fires and longer fire seasons — changes that are already being observed, he said.
Under worsening conditions, fires are harder to put out: They grow too big to get to safely, and even aerial suppression isn't necessarily possible because of the wind. So, what does that mean for indigenous fire techniques?
They'll still help, Leonard said. Areas that have undergone preventative burning lead to less intense fires. But the problem is, under the worst of conditions, the fire will still be able to burn straight through the land, despite any preventative measures.
Which means that towns are still in danger.
"We need to solve that inevitability by effective township design," Leonard said.
In other words, indigenous burning techniques aren't enough on their own. Communities will need to properly manicure adjacent forests, landscape their own private property, and have effective house design and maintenance, Leonard said.
I certainly have no issue with working the problem, best folks can figure out...but as a dismissal of climate change?
Nope. That's what drew the rolling eyes.
The problems are going to worsen.
Thanks Nostradamus of FanLax.
Yes, they will get worse if they don’t do control burns, just like in California where they were pushed aside. You seem to think the more you type, the more accurate you are. Funny anecdote, didn’t Trump say the same thing about not clearing underbrush in CA, and was made fun of.
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:18 pmhttp://www.drroyspencer.com/category/blogarticle/ Some more far right wing propaganda from the good doctor. he took time off from stoning bad Christians to post this. To those of you FLP folks who are naïve and uneducated scroll down to the comments.
The Aussies need to dress up a Koala as Smokey the Bear, clear more underbrush, do more controlled burns & clear cut fire breaks to protect population centers. ...CA too.
glad you got a chuckle, youth, but did you bother to read past the first paragraph?
As climate change worsens, so will the fires
The bushfires in Australia are never going to go away but will get worse. That's according to Justin Leonard, a researcher dedicated to understanding bushfires and land management. Bushfires are ignited both naturally and by humans, but Leonard called them "inevitable."
Climate change only worsens the conditions for fires, he said. Droughts and hotter weather only make for more intense fires and longer fire seasons — changes that are already being observed, he said.
Under worsening conditions, fires are harder to put out: They grow too big to get to safely, and even aerial suppression isn't necessarily possible because of the wind. So, what does that mean for indigenous fire techniques?
They'll still help, Leonard said. Areas that have undergone preventative burning lead to less intense fires. But the problem is, under the worst of conditions, the fire will still be able to burn straight through the land, despite any preventative measures.
Which means that towns are still in danger.
"We need to solve that inevitability by effective township design," Leonard said.
In other words, indigenous burning techniques aren't enough on their own. Communities will need to properly manicure adjacent forests, landscape their own private property, and have effective house design and maintenance, Leonard said.
I certainly have no issue with working the problem, best folks can figure out...but as a dismissal of climate change?
Nope. That's what drew the rolling eyes.
The problems are going to worsen.
Thanks Nostradamus of FanLax.
Yes, they will get worse if they don’t do control burns, just like in California where they were pushed aside. You seem to think the more you type, the more accurate you are. Funny anecdote, didn’t Trump say the same thing about not clearing underbrush in CA, and was made fun of.
Always California...It’s rarely some place else, like Vermont!
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 6:46 pm
A hallmark of today’s Democrat is the complete inability to debate ideas that are considered antithetical to their philosophy. I don’t even know who Spencer is, but TLD’s response to the post is a great reflection of the crisis afflicting the Democrats.
Exactly...you don't even know who Spencer is.
Exactly but yet again exactly opposite what your takeaway is.
I am far more interested in ideas and much less in people. TDS’ reply is an immediate pivot to the person rather than the idea.
TLD’s reply seems to imply an immediate disregard of anything this ‘Spencer’ has to offer. This is what we call “cancel culture”. It’s an insidious devaluation of the human and all of the complexity of same.
TDS is a similar construct.
"we call"
You choose to be ignorant, you choose to ignore other's points and questions.
Got it.
Your posts are a clear reminder why you were susceptible to TDS. And I’ll stray from my self-imposed rule to focus only on the idea and not the person (not you per se but those like you).
I have generally found that TDS manifests itself most glaringly in people who are most often adding personal insults to those who refuse to go along with the echo chamber. If I were a psychologist, this would be an area I’d study. It’s fascinating. If you go through the posts on this board, you’d find that the people quick to lob personal insults (such as ‘ignorant’ in the post above) are loudly anti-Trump. I’m not sure if the cause and effect are interchangeable, perhaps Trump’s character compels this behavior?, but yet there it is, always.
My characterization of you as ‘always being incorrect’ could also be perceived as an insult and I regret that. My real point is you do seem to be unable to see beyond the lens of Trump on almost every issue, causing you to miss the basket nearly every post.
Again, you actually ignore what I wrote...I haven't mentioned Trump in this discussion.
That's your fixation.
Here's the thing, you actually claim to be ignorant, as if that's a good thing.
Perhaps you are correct that those who dislike Trump vehemently (as I indeed do) do not think being ignorant is a good thing.
BTW, you ignored my question about what assets you think the US government owns that could be borrowed against or liquidated.
Your answer?
I don't claim to be ignorant of everything; I also don't claim to be an expert at everything (an affliction commonly seen on online boards).
The below will help understand that the US is not defenseless in figuring out it's debt of $23 trillion since it has a positive net worth of over $150 trillion.
good lord, do you even bother to read the links you post???
The table indicates that US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has a huge negative net worth.
Unless you want to implement that evil "socialism" and actually nationalize all the private assets...
what, no answer?
Geez man, some of us have other things to do in life besides post online. I was flying at 5,000 feet in an SR-22 enjoying the Everglades.
To your request, my point (such as it is, imperfect and uninformed), is we have options. And whether I like it or not, the American dollar is my responsibility as well as all of ours. Bloomberg strikes me as the only candidate who could assemble quality people to attack this problem.
I’d add one more idea which I’ve been told by a fund manager I know: he claims the rise of cryptocurrency is in essence a natural move away from bankrupt government fiat currencies. Some currencies such as the Swiss franc are managed well. Others, such as ours, are not. Crypto is a belief in another authority. He put it to a group of us recently: would you trust Tim Cook if Apple had a crypto, or Donald Trump with the US dollar.
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:18 pmhttp://www.drroyspencer.com/category/blogarticle/ Some more far right wing propaganda from the good doctor. he took time off from stoning bad Christians to post this. To those of you FLP folks who are naïve and uneducated scroll down to the comments.
The Aussies need to dress up a Koala as Smokey the Bear, clear more underbrush, do more controlled burns & clear cut fire breaks to protect population centers. ...CA too.
glad you got a chuckle, youth, but did you bother to read past the first paragraph?
As climate change worsens, so will the fires
The bushfires in Australia are never going to go away but will get worse. That's according to Justin Leonard, a researcher dedicated to understanding bushfires and land management. Bushfires are ignited both naturally and by humans, but Leonard called them "inevitable."
Climate change only worsens the conditions for fires, he said. Droughts and hotter weather only make for more intense fires and longer fire seasons — changes that are already being observed, he said.
Under worsening conditions, fires are harder to put out: They grow too big to get to safely, and even aerial suppression isn't necessarily possible because of the wind. So, what does that mean for indigenous fire techniques?
They'll still help, Leonard said. Areas that have undergone preventative burning lead to less intense fires. But the problem is, under the worst of conditions, the fire will still be able to burn straight through the land, despite any preventative measures.
Which means that towns are still in danger.
"We need to solve that inevitability by effective township design," Leonard said.
In other words, indigenous burning techniques aren't enough on their own. Communities will need to properly manicure adjacent forests, landscape their own private property, and have effective house design and maintenance, Leonard said.
I certainly have no issue with working the problem, best folks can figure out...but as a dismissal of climate change?
Nope. That's what drew the rolling eyes.
The problems are going to worsen.
Thanks Nostradamus of FanLax.
Yes, they will get worse if they don’t do control burns, just like in California where they were pushed aside. You seem to think the more you type, the more accurate you are. Funny anecdote, didn’t Trump say the same thing about not clearing underbrush in CA, and was made fun of.
Again, bother to read the article, please.
It's not me saying it, it's the article you posted.
This is Reading Comprehension 101, not rocket science nor soothsaying.
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 6:46 pm
A hallmark of today’s Democrat is the complete inability to debate ideas that are considered antithetical to their philosophy. I don’t even know who Spencer is, but TLD’s response to the post is a great reflection of the crisis afflicting the Democrats.
Exactly...you don't even know who Spencer is.
Exactly but yet again exactly opposite what your takeaway is.
I am far more interested in ideas and much less in people. TDS’ reply is an immediate pivot to the person rather than the idea.
TLD’s reply seems to imply an immediate disregard of anything this ‘Spencer’ has to offer. This is what we call “cancel culture”. It’s an insidious devaluation of the human and all of the complexity of same.
TDS is a similar construct.
"we call"
You choose to be ignorant, you choose to ignore other's points and questions.
Got it.
Your posts are a clear reminder why you were susceptible to TDS. And I’ll stray from my self-imposed rule to focus only on the idea and not the person (not you per se but those like you).
I have generally found that TDS manifests itself most glaringly in people who are most often adding personal insults to those who refuse to go along with the echo chamber. If I were a psychologist, this would be an area I’d study. It’s fascinating. If you go through the posts on this board, you’d find that the people quick to lob personal insults (such as ‘ignorant’ in the post above) are loudly anti-Trump. I’m not sure if the cause and effect are interchangeable, perhaps Trump’s character compels this behavior?, but yet there it is, always.
My characterization of you as ‘always being incorrect’ could also be perceived as an insult and I regret that. My real point is you do seem to be unable to see beyond the lens of Trump on almost every issue, causing you to miss the basket nearly every post.
Again, you actually ignore what I wrote...I haven't mentioned Trump in this discussion.
That's your fixation.
Here's the thing, you actually claim to be ignorant, as if that's a good thing.
Perhaps you are correct that those who dislike Trump vehemently (as I indeed do) do not think being ignorant is a good thing.
BTW, you ignored my question about what assets you think the US government owns that could be borrowed against or liquidated.
Your answer?
I don't claim to be ignorant of everything; I also don't claim to be an expert at everything (an affliction commonly seen on online boards).
The below will help understand that the US is not defenseless in figuring out it's debt of $23 trillion since it has a positive net worth of over $150 trillion.
good lord, do you even bother to read the links you post???
The table indicates that US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has a huge negative net worth.
Unless you want to implement that evil "socialism" and actually nationalize all the private assets...
what, no answer?
Geez man, some of us have other things to do in life besides post online. I was flying at 5,000 feet in an SR-22 enjoying the Everglades.
To your request, my point (such as it is, imperfect and uninformed), is we have options. And whether I like it or not, the American dollar is my responsibility as well as all of ours. Bloomberg strikes me as the only candidate who could assemble quality people to attack this problem.
I’d add one more idea which I’ve been told by a fund manager I know: he claims the rise of cryptocurrency is in essence a natural move away from bankrupt government fiat currencies. Some currencies such as the Swiss franc are managed well. Others, such as ours, are not. Crypto is a belief in another authority. He put it to a group of us recently: would you trust Tim Cook if Apple had a crypto, or Donald Trump with the US dollar.
Typical.
You say you are "interested in ideas, not people", yet as soon as the core assumption of the 'idea' is challenged with a simple question, you change the topic.
I ask one more time. What are all these assets you claim the US government owns?
I pointed out that the very data you linked shows a massive negative net worth, and you run from it?
geez man.
Listen, I'm all for "options" and I'm happy to actually engage on an 'idea' I haven't heard before, but when you dismiss all those weenie HBS and Yale Law folks you claim to hire and then can't even bother to read the data you post...well, that makes it really, really hard to cut you slack.
I can darn well tell you I'd fire in a heart beat any engineer who ignores data as much as you do.
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:18 pmhttp://www.drroyspencer.com/category/blogarticle/ Some more far right wing propaganda from the good doctor. he took time off from stoning bad Christians to post this. To those of you FLP folks who are naïve and uneducated scroll down to the comments.
The Aussies need to dress up a Koala as Smokey the Bear, clear more underbrush, do more controlled burns & clear cut fire breaks to protect population centers. ...CA too.
glad you got a chuckle, youth, but did you bother to read past the first paragraph?
As climate change worsens, so will the fires
The bushfires in Australia are never going to go away but will get worse. That's according to Justin Leonard, a researcher dedicated to understanding bushfires and land management. Bushfires are ignited both naturally and by humans, but Leonard called them "inevitable."
Climate change only worsens the conditions for fires, he said. Droughts and hotter weather only make for more intense fires and longer fire seasons — changes that are already being observed, he said.
Under worsening conditions, fires are harder to put out: They grow too big to get to safely, and even aerial suppression isn't necessarily possible because of the wind. So, what does that mean for indigenous fire techniques?
They'll still help, Leonard said. Areas that have undergone preventative burning lead to less intense fires. But the problem is, under the worst of conditions, the fire will still be able to burn straight through the land, despite any preventative measures.
Which means that towns are still in danger.
"We need to solve that inevitability by effective township design," Leonard said.
In other words, indigenous burning techniques aren't enough on their own. Communities will need to properly manicure adjacent forests, landscape their own private property, and have effective house design and maintenance, Leonard said.
I certainly have no issue with working the problem, best folks can figure out...but as a dismissal of climate change?
Nope. That's what drew the rolling eyes.
The problems are going to worsen.
Thanks Nostradamus of FanLax.
Yes, they will get worse if they don’t do control burns, just like in California where they were pushed aside. You seem to think the more you type, the more accurate you are. Funny anecdote, didn’t Trump say the same thing about not clearing underbrush in CA, and was made fun of.
Always California...It’s rarely some place else, like Vermont!
Nah, these sorts would like nothing more than to rip Vermont (liberal bastion that it is, yet no problem with out of control wildfires). It'd be more interesting if they were to aim at say Florida every time a hurricane hits, after all shouldn't they build more barriers??? Or maybe they need to do something about all that red tide that makes it dangerous to swim anywhere, eat a fish...
oh yeah, they have GOP governors, so can't be the government...
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 8:18 am
by Peter Brown
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:17 pm
I can darn well tell you I'd fire in a heart beat any engineer who ignores data as much as you do.
I replied on the other thread of the Nation's Financial Position where this post is more fitting.
I did however want to address your last sentence and why pedigree'd b-school/law school grads are rarely successful in customer service facing orgs like ours. The last thing I would do is summarily 'fire' an employee, short of some incredible human resources infraction. I find out why the person's execution is lacking; you don't assume they stink at their job (such as what you imply above; ). A pleasant face to face meeting, asking what we can do to improve their skills, is our preferred route. That kind of humane interaction is what makes for a great org. In an open organisation, line and middle managers can be close and straightforward with their senior executives and provide support with empathy, sympathy and diplomacy.
Your last sentence belies a few critical errors that we try to work on:
the leader's concern over appearing too weak (he's making noise for noise sake)
the contradiction… a source of ambiguity (do we treat everyone the same)
the curse of power (the CEO is not the answer...the team is)
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:17 pm
I can darn well tell you I'd fire in a heart beat any engineer who ignores data as much as you do.
I replied on the other thread of the Nation's Financial Position where this post is more fitting.
I did however want to address your last sentence and why pedigree'd b-school/law school grads are rarely successful in customer service facing orgs like ours. The last thing I would do is summarily 'fire' an employee, short of some incredible human resources infraction. I find out why the person's execution is lacking; you don't assume they stink at their job (such as what you imply above; ). A pleasant face to face meeting, asking what we can do to improve their skills, is our preferred route. That kind of humane interaction is what makes for a great org. In an open organisation, line and middle managers can be close and straightforward with their senior executives and provide support with empathy, sympathy and diplomacy.
Your last sentence belies a few critical errors that we try to work on:
the leader's concern over appearing too weak (he's making noise for noise sake)
the contradiction… a source of ambiguity (do we treat everyone the same)
the curse of power (the CEO is not the answer...the team is)
I've liked a lot your thoughts on good management practices.
I said I'd fire an engineer who ignores data as much as you do.
I wasn't saying that about a sales clerk or a customer service rep. Their job doesn't turn on analytical thinking.
Why did I mention "engineer"?
Because you said they are so much preferable to Harvard MBA's, Yale lawyers, etc. And that you hire them.
Well, sure, they're indeed preferred... for engineering jobs.
You're right, I wouldn't fire an engineer because they failed to pay attention to some data...once. But if, when the data is pointed to, they say "squirrel", I'm showing them the door. If they point to a data set they they think is supportive, but didn't actually read the data at all, then I'd show them the door.
why? Because they can't be trusted to do the key part of their job. That's something I can't afford to teach.
As I really don't like firing people, I'd undoubtedly probe enough times to be sure I was right that he or she couldn't be trusted to do an analytical job, but PB, you've crossed that threshold.
I saw your clarification about "hiring" Harvard MBA's and Yale lawyers as that you hire law firms and investment bankers who hire such folks. But you do know that you can hire less expensive lawyers and investment bankers, who have few or no such high falutin' school alums on staff, right? Plenty of them out there.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:17 pm
I can darn well tell you I'd fire in a heart beat any engineer who ignores data as much as you do.
I replied on the other thread of the Nation's Financial Position where this post is more fitting.
I did however want to address your last sentence and why pedigree'd b-school/law school grads are rarely successful in customer service facing orgs like ours. The last thing I would do is summarily 'fire' an employee, short of some incredible human resources infraction. I find out why the person's execution is lacking; you don't assume they stink at their job (such as what you imply above; ). A pleasant face to face meeting, asking what we can do to improve their skills, is our preferred route. That kind of humane interaction is what makes for a great org. In an open organisation, line and middle managers can be close and straightforward with their senior executives and provide support with empathy, sympathy and diplomacy.
Your last sentence belies a few critical errors that we try to work on:
the leader's concern over appearing too weak (he's making noise for noise sake)
the contradiction… a source of ambiguity (do we treat everyone the same)
the curse of power (the CEO is not the answer...the team is)
I've liked a lot your thoughts on good management practices.
I said I'd fire an engineer who ignores data as much as you do.
I wasn't saying that about a sales clerk or a customer service rep. Their job doesn't turn on analytical thinking.
Why did I mention "engineer"?
Because you said they are so much preferable to Harvard MBA's, Yale lawyers, etc. And that you hire them.
Well, sure, they're indeed preferred... for engineering jobs.
You're right, I wouldn't fire an engineer because they failed to pay attention to some data...once. But if, when the data is pointed to, they say "squirrel", I'm showing them the door. If they point to a data set they they think is supportive, but didn't actually read the data at all, then I'd show them the door.
why? Because they can't be trusted to do the key part of their job. That's something I can't afford to teach.
As I really don't like firing people, I'd undoubtedly probe enough times to be sure I was right that he or she couldn't be trusted to do an analytical job, but PB, you've crossed that threshold.
I saw your clarification about "hiring" Harvard MBA's and Yale lawyers as that you hire law firms and investment bankers who hire such folks. But you do know that you can hire less expensive lawyers and investment bankers, who have few or no such high falutin' school alums on staff, right? Plenty of them out there.
Plenty of them in Pensacola and Norfolk.
Re: Climate Change & The Environment
Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:25 am
by Peter Brown
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:09 am
I saw your clarification about "hiring" Harvard MBA's and Yale lawyers as that you hire law firms and investment bankers who hire such folks. But you do know that you can hire less expensive lawyers and investment bankers, who have few or no such high falutin' school alums on staff, right? Plenty of them out there.
I suspect that many guys like me tend to overcompensate for our personal weaknesses by hiring 'named' firms.
Our NY law firms are incredibly, outrageously expensive on a per-hour basis but there's little to no leverage when negotiating invoices (I've tried) - we do use some local firms for smaller matters, especially real estate transactions. I feel a need for a named firm. Call it a sin of mine.
The i-bank we use is a function of historical ease; they've been great, answer the phone whenever we call, seem to be able to make introductions for us when all else has failed, occasionally have proactive ideas which we have followed through on. Generally happy to pay their fee because it is all performance based.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:09 am
I saw your clarification about "hiring" Harvard MBA's and Yale lawyers as that you hire law firms and investment bankers who hire such folks. But you do know that you can hire less expensive lawyers and investment bankers, who have few or no such high falutin' school alums on staff, right? Plenty of them out there.
I suspect that many guys like me tend to overcompensate for our personal weaknesses by hiring 'named' firms.
Our NY law firms are incredibly, outrageously expensive on a per-hour basis but there's little to no leverage when negotiating invoices (I've tried) - we do use some local firms for smaller matters, especially real estate transactions. I feel a need for a named firm. Call it a sin of mine.
The i-bank we use is a function of historical ease; they've been great, answer the phone whenever we call, seem to be able to make introductions for us when all else has failed, occasionally have proactive ideas which we have followed through on. Generally happy to pay their fee because it is all performance based.
I wonder why you have that 'sin' PB.
Is it that somewhere deep in the reptilian part of your brain you know these guys are the best in their industry and can best protect you?
Or do you think you're just susceptible to the con?
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:09 am
I saw your clarification about "hiring" Harvard MBA's and Yale lawyers as that you hire law firms and investment bankers who hire such folks. But you do know that you can hire less expensive lawyers and investment bankers, who have few or no such high falutin' school alums on staff, right? Plenty of them out there.
I suspect that many guys like me tend to overcompensate for our personal weaknesses by hiring 'named' firms.
Our NY law firms are incredibly, outrageously expensive on a per-hour basis but there's little to no leverage when negotiating invoices (I've tried) - we do use some local firms for smaller matters, especially real estate transactions. I feel a need for a named firm. Call it a sin of mine.
The i-bank we use is a function of historical ease; they've been great, answer the phone whenever we call, seem to be able to make introductions for us when all else has failed, occasionally have proactive ideas which we have followed through on. Generally happy to pay their fee because it is all performance based.
I wonder why you have that 'sin' PB.
Is it that somewhere deep in the reptilian part of your brain you know these guys are the best in their industry and can best protect you?
Or do you think you're just susceptible to the con?
I'll use a firm that we don't use, for argument sake. Cromwell and Sullivan. They have the tools to get things done in most courts and rooms, and you know they will be there tomorrow after a deal closes or doesn't. Are they any better than a firm in Tallahassee? Maybe, maybe not. But you pay for reputation, and reputation only happens over a long period of time. They have that. Most firms outside the large cities just frankly are not as large (deep) and don't have the earned reputation.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:09 am
I saw your clarification about "hiring" Harvard MBA's and Yale lawyers as that you hire law firms and investment bankers who hire such folks. But you do know that you can hire less expensive lawyers and investment bankers, who have few or no such high falutin' school alums on staff, right? Plenty of them out there.
I suspect that many guys like me tend to overcompensate for our personal weaknesses by hiring 'named' firms.
Our NY law firms are incredibly, outrageously expensive on a per-hour basis but there's little to no leverage when negotiating invoices (I've tried) - we do use some local firms for smaller matters, especially real estate transactions. I feel a need for a named firm. Call it a sin of mine.
The i-bank we use is a function of historical ease; they've been great, answer the phone whenever we call, seem to be able to make introductions for us when all else has failed, occasionally have proactive ideas which we have followed through on. Generally happy to pay their fee because it is all performance based.
I wonder why you have that 'sin' PB.
Is it that somewhere deep in the reptilian part of your brain you know these guys are the best in their industry and can best protect you?
Or do you think you're just susceptible to the con?
I'll use a firm that we don't use, for argument sake. Cromwell and Sullivan. They have the tools to get things done in most courts and rooms, and you know they will be there tomorrow after a deal closes or doesn't. Are they any better than a firm in Tallahassee? Maybe, maybe not. But you pay for reputation, and reputation only happens over a long period of time. They have that. Most firms outside the large cities just frankly are not as large (deep) and don't have the earned reputation.
So, the first choice.
Yup, such firms have been successful over the longer term, earning their "reputation"...their model has been successful as they deliver results as well or better than their peer group. They hire super bright young folks with top pay checks, work them to the bone, and those that survive and produce results get promoted, and get paid as partners. Yes, they do tend to hire from the most selective law schools because that highly competitive funnel and 3 year experience makes the hiring pool more reliable for rapid entry and ultimate outcome. It produces results.
Which doesn't mean you can't find arrogant jerks among this sort of crew.
