Last time it was just a test that I could find a profitable use for the skills I have taken over 11 years to acquire. This time it is a test that I have the courage to do something without any assurance, and the discipline to keep it steady even when things don’t work out perfectly.

Today I am happy. Today I am concerned about my future.

I also feel some level of sadness. I truly enjoyed working with the people that will stay behind on the company for which I worked. I did learned a lot from them, and I think they will be successful – it would have been great to continue being part of that success.

Now… it is time to build something greater. Time to build Me version 2.0. ]]> 332@http://www.aneshome.com/weblog/ default Tue, 07 Aug 2007 22:28:00 -0700 http://www.aneshome.com/pivot/entry.php?id=330 http://www.aneshome.com/pivot/entry.php?id=330#comm For a long time the US economy has enjoyed a long period of extreme consumerism and low inflation. Traditionally the more people buy of something (more “demand”), the more price rises for it (about the same “offer”). In an interesting phenomena, manufacturers have found ways of increasing “offer” and the margin earned at the same time by shipping the manufacturing to countries where manufacturing costs are lower. When lowering salaries, real estate and utilities costs is not enough, the next to suffer are quality controls. Nothing new there….

For a long time consumers have learned to tolerate cheaper quality as long as they can buy more. People have bigger and more of almost everything: clothes, shoes, electronics, furniture, house wares, etc. Under normal circumstances, lower quality on these items can only affect their durability (which still exceeds their use, since in a consumerist society they will be replaced very soon by a newer model).

Then cheap and inferior food starts appearing on our supermarkets. In our efforts to buy more and more of the same goods manufacturers look for lower quality food as well. As if US produced food wasn’t of bad enough quality and included questionable ingredients like genetically modified food, pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, and radiation, we now have lowered the bar a couple notches lower. Tainted/poisoned food started to arrive from China and other countries. (Where “poisoned” is a relative term… Europeans believe that genetically modified food is almost as bad as “poisoned”, while the US is happy about it. US also tolerate radiation in food, which many people think as poison. Apparently China food manufacturers are tolerant about “poisonous” ingredients on their food as well, just not the same “poisons” we accept in the US.)

Can we trust food from other countries? Certainly. We always had. We can continue to do so. We may have to put into place stringent controls to assure that they do not contain any contaminants, but we can continue to do so. It increases variety in our diet and keeps costs down – for us, and for them, as we may be able to ship some of our extra food to them as well. However, we may have to recognize that there is a point where we can’t just keep cutting costs. We may be able to compromise on labor, real estate, and utility costs… but as soon as we make the production process less quality-focused (just as we have done with other products), we start to suffer.

Maybe this is a good reminder that we should try to buy a bit more quality, even if we must consume a bit less. We may even loose a bit of weight and have a healthier life. ]]> 330@http://www.aneshome.com/weblog/ Politics Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:38:00 -0700 http://www.aneshome.com/pivot/entry.php?id=322 http://www.aneshome.com/pivot/entry.php?id=322#comm A home isn't a home unless you live on it. And this home has a lot of living to be done. I also have a lot of catching up to do in many aspects of my life: personal and professional. Two months in Australia can bring great experiences and invaluable business acumen. They can also take a toll on you. ]]> 322@http://www.aneshome.com/weblog/ Jose Sun, 01 Apr 2007 09:16:00 -0700 http://www.aneshome.com/pivot/entry.php?id=313 http://www.aneshome.com/pivot/entry.php?id=313#comm Civil rights and liberties have changed the lives of the common man and of the owner. Modern society doesn't impose serfdoom on those who don't own land. Furthermore, owning land doesn't directly make someone special, as the mere quarter of an acre on which most suburban homes sit now would not feed too many people if it had to be put to farm use, nor the house structure would produce anything that could be bartered for food or goods.

What is still true is that the employee (serf) is expected to produce far more than what he/she will bring home in the way of money. The business owner(s) (nobles) make use of most of the production to cover the costs of running the business and paying taxes (tribute) to higher authorities. Increasingly, business owners are expected to provide for social needs of the employees (serfs) – like medical and life insurance, and even vacation and sick time. Business owners hope that through good management they will be allowed to keep a reasonable amount of the value produced by the employees.

Both models have a drawback for the employee/serf. This person is not really free to get out of the situation where he/she is. Both the employee and the serf need sustenance (food and shelter) and the modern employee has the perceived need of acquiring luxury goods. The only way these people acquire the things they need is by producing. However, neither has the means to produce – the serf doesn't own the land and the employee doesn't own the business. The serf needs to move from one noble to the other, and the employee from one employer to the other.

Fortunately modern society does provide for the ability to move from one segment of the population to the other. Better yet, the move can be gradual or at once – up to every individual. An employee (serf) can become a business owner (noble). For this he/she needs to invest into the starting of a business and if successful can have people work for him/her and may be able to enjoy the production of those employees. It is all possible because we have a very liquid currency that can be accumulated and invested until it is time to start a business. We also have credit institutions and even venture capitalists willing to help someone with the energy to move from being a serf into being a noble.

As you might expect, nobody said the path to become a business owner/noble would be easy. Business may fail, and then you are in a worse situation than you where before. Just think that the path to Knighthood used to be riskier: you could fall a casualty of war in an attempt to impress your noble enough to make you a landed Knight.

Modern society does allows for the same person to be the equivalent of a serf and a noble. A serf in the sense that person works for an employee – and can only keep a portion of his production to feed his/her family. However, that same person can invest a portion of his/her earnings into companies – essentially becoming one of the owners of a corporation. By becoming one of the owners of the corporation, now he/she enjoys the excess production from such endeavor. He/she also shares the risks of the corporation, just as the noble(s) shared the risk of defending their land (market).

There is another option in both societies. The craftsman, that expert in a trade who barters his services for food, shelter, and goods rather than his raw work in the land. In modern times this expert on his field is called the independent consultant. This is the electrician, the plumber, and the carpenter. This person is also the staffing consultant, the temporary worker, the IT consultant, and many other flavors of the same idea: someone who barters his/her services directly for a compensation. Fortunately you do not have to go through a 10 year apprenticeship / slavery to earn your trade now. You just have to get education and experience (potentially a lot more than 10 years). Traditionally life has been more comfortable for this kind of person – but this person is not protected by the business owner (noble) from any social maladies. This person is not entitled to keeping his sustenance as the serf does either. If a there is no war, fletcher may be out of work, and if there is no wine the cooper (barrel maker) may be out of luck.

If you had the choice, would you rather be:

• A Serf / Employee.
• A Noble / Business Owner.
• A Craftsman / Independent Consultant.
• A combination?

You do not need to be in sales to be felt. You just need to do something so important that the company would not survive without you: and in small companies this is something achievable. The engineer with the grand idea that changed the company. The operations guy who changed the office layout into a more productive and comfortable one. The marketing guy that launched the campaign that raised sales by 10%.

The problem: In large company you have to be in a very high level management position to create this impact. Small companies haven’t showed me the money lately. The large company of dubious reputation that I work for shows me more money. I haven’t received a very high offer from a small company.

The potential solution: I am willing to go to a small company for less salary, any good small company, as long as I get a significant ownership on that company. I want to have a piece of the company that I am helping build again.

The question is: How do we get to that solution? How do we get a company that offers a significant amount of ownership in exchange for success?? How do I get an opportunity to create massive ammounts of cash through ownership and direct involvement?? ]]> 299@http://www.aneshome.com/weblog/ Earning Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:22:00 -0700 http://www.aneshome.com/pivot/entry.php?id=298 http://www.aneshome.com/pivot/entry.php?id=298#comm many people suggest that you should always leave your waitress tips in cash, as opposed to by credit card. I have heard several reasons, along with my thoughts on them:

• Cash tips are not reported in the W-2 forms and save the waitress money in taxes -- Not necessarily true, sometimes, when the tips are not recorded, the restaurant owner has to estimate them. However, they usually estimate them on the low-side, saving some taxes to the waitress. I do not believe in willingly helping anybody commit tax fraud. I help people use lawful ways of reducing tax liability, but hiding earnings from Uncle Sam is fraud. Some people justify waitress tax fraud on the fact that they earn $2 an hour. Besides the fact that I do not justify fraud I have to point out that if they wait a single table of four for an hour and the table consumes $80 in food and beverage, they earn around $10 in tips. $12/hour is a better salary than a supermarket checkout person, who has to report all his/her earnings to Uncle Sam.
• Credit Card Tips are Shared Among All Service Personnel - True in some restaurants, but usually not the case. But those restaurants also ask the cash tips to be placed in a common pot – if they pocket the tip cash, then they are breaking the agreement with their peers.
• Credit Card Companies Charge Commissions on Tips - This one is probable true. Credit Card companies charge a commission on the charges you make on them. The restaurant owner may reduce the tip to cover the tip’s commission. I have read some articles that suggest that credit card users leave more tips than cash users, which may compensate.

I believe people should just leave the tip on the same method that they use to pay the meal. Don’t make your life more complex than it has to be.

Third Party Content

...every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. -- Adam Smith, 1776, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

Yes, we all certainly want more of what we have got. But gone are the days on which people feared cold, hunger, clothing, or even the lack of luxuries (or affordable luxuries). Once pressing needs go away, we may have enough time to think about what we call “social issues” – or other people’s problems. Getting more and more goes to the backseat, and so does the “invisible hand” theory. At that time we start having conversations about how to solve them, instead of working so hard that our effort makes the whole nation stronger.

Adam Smith and Karl Marx could have made mistakes in their philosophically opposed treaties. Karl Marx’s treaty proved a failure once, with the Soviet Union. Could it be that Adam Smith’s treaty was also a failure? Or could we trust the “invisible hand” will come back to save us from our current path? ]]> 297@http://www.aneshome.com/weblog/ Politics, Earning Wed, 08 Nov 2006 15:29:00 -0700 http://www.aneshome.com/pivot/entry.php?id=296 http://www.aneshome.com/pivot/entry.php?id=296#comm At the State level it means a Democrat Party controlled government, with a governor that has a more interest in having "conversations and consulting with profesionals" than on moving the state ahead. His major idea on his website is to help the disabled and the old – neither of whom help the economy in any way. He will help the state congress pass laws that help provide affordable housing and social benefits, while keeping taxes at the current level or even raising them. Corporations will probably suffer if he adds tax burden to them – right now Corporations are fleeing Taxachusetts. Many are going to Rhode Island, Arizona, Utah, and other corporation friendly-states. My major concern is that, according to wikipedia, he supports a single-payer (government-wide) health care system: trading my premium care health care insurance for a system that gives every person the same level of care: in other words, a mediocre one.

In six states, local minimum wage laws where enacted or raised. I am a strong believer that minimum wages should be set at levels that make sense to local economies, not at the Federal level. If each of the 50 states had their own minimum wage law, it would make less sense to fight for a Federal increase.

Still, there is some hope. Assuming individuals are still concerned about themselves, we can trust Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” theory, that society will fix itself in some way – not because of an interest in a better society in itself, but because an interest in self improvement. ]]> 296@http://www.aneshome.com/weblog/ Politics Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:05:00 -0700