My Photo

My Online Status

Blog powered by TypePad
Member since 10/2005

disclaimer

  • Disclaimer of Endorsement: Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring. Disclaimer of Hyperlinks: The appearance of external hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the author of the linked web sites, or the information, products or services contained therein. The author does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. All links are provided with the intent of meeting the mission of the Ask Uncle Bill blog site. Please let me know about existing external links which you believe are inappropriate and about specific additional external links which you believe ought to be included. Disclaimer of Liability: With respect to information, advice or recommendations available from this blog, the author makes no warranty, express or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. The author is not responsible for the content of any "off-site" web pages referenced from this site.

« July 2006 | Main | September 2006 »

Stanford or ?

Got this from AXJMS--

Very interesting series you have going here. How important is it to go to one of the "best" schools?

Another excellent question.  And the answer is...beats me.  But here is what I know from personal experience.

A "best" school is very important in landing that first job.  The top employers go to the top schools and interview.  Case in point--me.  As pointed out I graduated University of Illinois MBA school in the worst recession since the Great Depression.  Another example of my great sense of timing.  My strategy was to interview with anybody and everybody.  The most fun I had was interviewing with Wilson Sporting Goods.  They were looking for salespeople and the first interview was with two guys that looked like they played for the Bears.  I am not the athletic type.  I should be but I am not with a center of gravity around my neck.  But somehow got through that interview and to headquarters which was fun with golf clubs, tennis rackets, running stuff everywhere.  Tennis was really big back then until it wasn't and the company owner, Pepsico for some reason, dumped the company in the middle of my interviews so no job offer.

But then I ran into a company that interviewed only at the "best" schools--The Quaker Oats Company.  Seems they had an emergency job to fill and they sent out the call to schools besides Stanford, Wharton, Harvard, Northwestern, UC and the other "best" schools.  Probably figured they were a little late in the school year so they widened the search.  The call went to the placement office at Illinois and since I had studiously cultivated the student employees in the office, I got the call and was in Chicago like a shot.  And I got snubbed, kind of.  The "best" school bias was there but I did my best to fight it off.  The Steve Martin line "I was born a poor black child..." came to mind. 

Guess they figured I was the best of a bad lot and I got the job.  I became a member of the Class of 75.  Not many companies do this anymore but Quaker followed the Proctor and Gamble model of hiring fifty or more MBA's per year.  So I started and ended up in the auditorium with 49 other people.  49 from the "best" schools and me.  They showed a little film with the Quaker man, went through benefits, the Chairman showed up, and I got a warm feeling about the company.  Went over to thank the HR VP and he brought me back to reality.  "In five years there will be five of you left here."  Yikes.  He was wrong.  On my fifth anniversary I went through the company directory and there were three of us left.

The point here is that MBAs from the "best" schools do not always succeed.  Oh, some of those 49 went to better jobs but a lot flopped, failed, got fired.  Because even smart people from the "best" schools do stupid things.  Smart in school doesn't necessarily translate into smart in business.

But you do get your foot in the door but that is it.  The first year I probably got asked where I went to school ten times.  The second year, five times.  Third year, once.  After that, never.  What you did counted more than where you went.

There is much made of the "Old Boy" network.  Maybe it exists.  I don't know because I was never an "Old Boy."  But I do know that American business is too competitive to put up with an idiot no matter who he or she knows.

That said, the best finance guy I ever met or worked for went to Harvard.  But he would have been the best finance guy I ever met or worked for even if he went to a junior college.

The fact is a name school will get you a job.  If you have the money and the talent, go for it.  I didn't have the money or the talent so it wasn't a choice for me.  But I did ok.  And I'm not knocking the University of Illinois.  It was, and is, a good school.  Which doesn't matter either because you learn the same thing wherever you go for an MBA.

We will discuss that tomorrow since I have been to Illinois and I have been to Stanford.  Wait a minute--Stanford does have one major advantage over Illinois, besides location.  So we will have a contest--let me know if you think you know the advantage.  More tomorrow.

MBAs-More On This

Got to finish C's questions--full or part time?

The answer is...maybe.  Actually the answer is whatever works for you.  Take this scenario--you live in Chicago, work at a company that will pay your way or part of your way or most of your way, and have the discipline to go without a social life for five years.  Maybe not that bad but close.  And the deal is worth it.  Because you get a valuable MBA from Northwestern or University of Chicago, somebody else pays for it, and you save a lot on bar bills. 

Plus you will probably get into a school that you may not be able to get into as a day student because these universities figure out that the company is paying the bill plus the company may donate to the school plus they hire their graduates so if the company calls up and wants to send somebody that is dumb as a post the university will think twice before rejecting the post.

So look around at your city, see what universities offer night programs, see if the degree is worth the effort, see if your company will pay for it and go for it.  But don't expect much to happen at your company once you get the degree.  You are still the same old schmuck you always were but with an advanced degree.  The real value is that your resume looks a bunch better to another employer.  Never quite figured out why a company would make their employees look better to other companies but companies do odd things. 

Full time.  The benefits are that you get it over with, you have plenty of time on your hands, you can spend a lot of time in the bars, you have enjoyed two more years of college.  Or you might meet somebody.  I did so guess it was worth it. 

Downside is the expense and the time out of the workplace.  I really don't like the expense side.  Not just for an MBA but college in general.  Costs are getting out of hand because it is a protected industry.  In what other industry does the government give the customer the money to buy the product and because of this the industry has absolutely no interest in cost control?  Can't think of any off the top of my head.  How does this work?  The student (or more likely the student's parents) get the tuition bill, faint, but when they wake up the university says don't worry about it, get a loan.  And you do at a low rate because the bank is not loaning to you--a bad credit risk--but to the US Treasury--a great or no risk--because the government guarantees the loan.  A license to print money.  Not for you but for the university and the bank.  I haven't seen any studies but I would bet that the high cost of education is a direct function of the availability of student loans.  But the practice isn't going away so I will shut up about it.

Back to the MBA.  What is the cost?  I don't know, I'm afraid to look.  Plus I don't have to worry about it right now.  My son is in the service and he HAS to get an advanced degree but the military (or actually, you, the taxpayer) will pay for it.  Margot just got a great job (did I tell you about this?) where her employer is going to train her in-house.  Plus, Margot is not the kind of person who yearns for her college days.  The social part was fun but she has no desire to see the inside of a classroom in the foreseeable future. 

Is the price, whatever it is, worth it?  A reluctant yes.  If you are serious, if you want to get ahead, if you want to go from Art History major to tycoon, if you want to stimulate your brain instead of watching American Idol, yes it is worth it.

Tomorrow another great question--How important is it to get into one of the 'best' schools?

MBAs--The Dismal Science

Actually economics is the dismal science but hey, I needed a title.  I don't really like to talk about MBAs because the topic is pretty boring, to me anyway.  But I know it is on the minds of a lot of young people so here we go.  Got a few comments/questions regarding MBAs from the Cincinnati Kid post so let's look at one.

I wonder what one stands to gain from an mba....if its is all I am hoping it will be.Doing an mba has been on my todo list...i hope to get to it within 1 yr. Would you be kind enough to give me your opinion about part-time vs full time mba. Though i can't pay for the full time, I am wondering if it will be worth taking a loan out for. thanks,C

C has basically boiled the issue down into three issues.  What is it good for? Part time or full time? How much does it cost?

What is it good for or I wonder what one stands to gain from an MBA?  Great question.  First let's subdivide the world.  Accounting, advertising, retial, engineering, some banks, software, computer companies genereally do not put a premium on MBAs.  They may want you to get one later but for entrance into their world the door is open to mere undergraduates.  Consumer goods companies like pharmaceuticals (Merck, J&J), companies like Coke, Pepsico, P&G, they do.  Companies like GM, Ford, Daimler take engineers but their finance guys probably have MBAs.  (This analysis is my own--it may be wrong.  I don't care.  It is what I have observed.)  So first find out if your industry puts a premium on an MBA. 

My case is illustrative and may be a bit dusty but I think it still holds true.  I was a history major at the University of Illinois.  Graduated with absolutely no idea of what to do.  Vague notions of law school and thank God I didn't get in.  My sister did make it (Stanford, no less), has her own law firm, loves left wing Democrat clients and staying up all night getting ready to go to court over some school issue thing.  Bores me to tears but she loves it so I'm proud of her.  But not for me.  So got tossed out of the house, moved to Denver (everybody did in those days), got a job selling door to door and then driving trucks in the worst winter in Denver history (global freezing) and said, there's got to be a better way.  MBA school started to look pretty good.  At least it was indoors.

Took the test, did ok, applied to Illinois because it was cheap and had a good reputation for accountants.  Not that I wanted to be an accountant but figured some of that would rub off.  Had to take summer school because calculus was not a requirement in Liberal Arts.  (Can anyone define calculus?) Started the fall semester and the cold fist of reality hit me hard.  Because here is a fact.  The MBA came into being a long time ago as a noble idea--business training for the non-business major.  The idea was to take English majors and history majors and engineers and such that had somehow wormed their way into business and then have them get an MBA to round out their education.  Hey, that's me, I thought.  Until I showed up for Accounting 301 or whatever it was.  I took the first test and got the second lowest grade in the class.  I beat out a Turkish woman who couldn't speak English.  Here is the truth I soon found out--90% of the people in a MBA program were business majors who already had this stuff.  Why are these guys here?  I thought this was business for Liberal Arts dummies?  But anyway, sucked it up and went forward.

So why were they there?  Because the best job opportunities go to people with MBA's.  As noted in earlier posts, Human Resources divides up jobs.  The best ones in traditional industries have an MBA required.  You don't get the job unless you got the MBA.

So the answer to C's first question of what do I have to gain from an MBA is You Get Your Foot In The Door of some of the biggest companies in America. 

The only problem is that the biggest companies get their MBA's from the 'best' schools.  Back to the case in point-me.  I was near graduation in the biggest recession since 1929 and desperate for anything.  Along comes Quaker Oats.  Quaker Oats doesn't exist anymore.  Well it does but as part of Pepsico.  (Hey, how about that lady CEO at Pepsico?  A woman no less and from India.  There goes the glass ceiling.  And reverse outsourcing.)  But Quaker hired from Stanford, Wharton, Harvard.  Not Illinois.  Except me.  And one friend who became VP and Treasurer of the Tribune Company.  Not bad. 

So let's summarize.  First, if you want an entry level job at a big company do this.  Graduate from undergraduate in anything, get a few years job experience, look at the schools you want to get in, see if you can and go.

We will discuss what to do about part time vs full time tomorrow.

But lastly the real reason for getting an MBA.  If you were not a business major undergraduate, you will learn something.  You will learn a lot.  You will learn how a business is run.  You won't learn everything but you will learn that because a lot, not all, of what you learn in business school is used in a real business. 

More tomorrow.

The Cincinnati Kid Redux

More info from Carl--I will jump in where I feel like it.

Bill,

Thanks for the really good feedback in your Cincinnati Kid article ( http://askunclebill.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/08/bill_congratula.html).  I appreciate the time you spent on it, and the unbiased advice.   And I think that I owe you some additional input in response to your article.  (You also indicated that you might want to weigh in on the pros and cons, so I thought I might get started by adding my own pros and cons).

So, let me take your comments one by one, as well as add some background.

"Second reason--money tends to slide around and accommodate change"

I agree.  Currently – we (long-term girlfriend and myself), are very good about sticking to our budgets.   We don't eat out or shop nearly as much as we could, and the money saved here goes toward investments, and the "long-weekend" vacations that we take (taking long-weekends keeps me from having to take vacation days at work).   Now, vacations are a great way to burn though money; but that being said, all of our vacations have the dual purpose of also being in places that we're considering living after we get married (Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, etc.).   Since we're currently able to take the trips, I want to get a feel for different areas, and long-weekends are a nice (albeit expensive) way to do it.

Don't worry about the expenses involved with looking around at places to live.  These are start-up costs and well worth the investment.  They will go away once you move.

"Carl needs to get where he can become a manager, not a guy. That is what Carl is talking about, I think.  If he is not, he should be."

So now I'm going to take the other side here, and instead of talking about the pros, let me address the cons…  Being a "career manager" makes me nervous.  It's not the responsibility, or having a new focus either.  In fact, your response here was a bit of a surprise, so let me explain... The other career advice that I've solicited from people who are either late in their careers, or retired… and all of which I consider to be successful both in monetary terms, and in career terms, have said something different.   When asked about their careers, and what they might have done differently they've all said: "Stay technical for as long as you can; find a way to get paid a premium for your trade, and only move into a management role when you've reached a certain financial state and can afford to risk losing your technical skills".

Ah, ha.  Now we are getting to the crux of the matter.  Cruxs (cruxi ?) usually revolve around that old issue--what do I want to be when I grow up?  Also, Carl brings up a really important issue--do I want to be management or do I want to be labor? 

The key phrase here is the advice Carl is getting from other sources--"Stay technical for a s long as you can; find a way to get paid a premium for your trade..."  Let's take that one first.  I look at that as a lone gun for hire.  I don't want that for me.  I always wanted to be part of a team, actually leader of a team, that was committed to making an enterprise work in the long run.  Couple this with the fact that I had absolutely no technical skills of any kind and I really had no choice.  I was good around a balance sheet or foreign exchange but I didn't know a mainframe from a bread machine. 

I also figured out that I wanted to set, or at least help set, the rules.  I don't like being dictated to and I figured out that managers set the rules.   

Managers also set compensation.  They will pay x plus benefits for techies but no more.  They will pay car allowances, stock options, bonuses, supplementary pension plans, retirement health care, travel, and any other thing they can get past the compensation committee for themselves.

Plus I always want to do different stuff.  As a manager you do different stuff from hiring and firing to travelling around all over the place doing...different stuff. 

Finally, if you are going to going to work every day, you might as well run the place.

 

So the reasoning here is that with technical skills (being an IT guy), I can get a job almost anywhere.  Say the company I work for goes bust; I get laid off, etc… I can go down the street, or half-way around the world, and find another job in my field.  I know middle-managers, in their early 40's with families and real responsibilities that've been laid off and out of work… I don't want to be in that situation.   I also realize that I can't remain an IT guy forever; but might not 4-years out of college be too early to make the transition?

Guess what, I just met a 40 year old IT guy yesterday that was out of work.  Maybe he wasn't any good but I don't think so.  I view technology as a commodity.  Look at prices of the stuff.  This guy was at Sabre and it was "I need 10 tech guys tomorrow."  When the project was over, those 10 techies were on the street.  Sounds like day laborers. 

Everyone is in danger, all the time, of being out of work.  That is why I made it a practice to have the best job I could, paying management wages with all the bennies and then saving like crazy so I could say Screw You when the time came.  That is the secret to success. 

I'm not sure there is a need for a 'transition.'  I think the goal is to think vertically, rather than horizontally.  (Is that spelled right?)  Well, you get the picture.  If you think flat you say what job can I jump to at the same level and survive.  If you think vertically, you are saying what can I do now that will help me up the ladder.

Which leads to Do You Want To Go Up The Ladder.  The ladder has taken a lot of knocks, believe me, I grew up in the sixties.  The strange thing is the higher up the ladder I got, the more interesting the people.  Maybe not always nicer but usually and smarter as well.  Plus the pay was better. 

The other side of the coin is, as Groucho Marx put it, "I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member."  It's your decision.

So, moving on to your comments about the options…

2) Start a business where I'm at, serving a market that I anticipate

being successful in.

Carl is a go-getter.  That is good and I feel he will be successful at whatever he does.   But, and there is always a but, he may learn a lot from a stint at a big company.  These people aren't stupid--you have to be smart to succeed.   You can learn a lot in a big company if you pay attention.

I think that working for a big company would give me a different, and valuable perspective.  But in my mind, I keep going back to a quote I remember… "Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." (Robert F. Kennedy).   And in thinking about the profiles of other successful people… Richard Branson - started with writing magazine in his parent's basement and built Virgin. Bill Gates, we all know his story… right now, I'm young with few responsibilities, I'm more capable of taking risk now then I might ever be.

So… if I go to work for a big company, I'll probably learn some things that will give me a new perspective on starting a business.   But, I might have too many commitments by that point (family, mortgage, etc.) to justify the risk   Or, I start a business now, put down really deep roots, and possibly get "stuck" in a niche that might disappear in time.

This is the issue.  But first some words on greatness. Bobby Kennedy had a way with words (not as good as his older brother but not bad) and he also had a lot of money so he could "fail greatly."  Also, don't think Bill Gates was eating dog food.  I hate to go up against Bobby but my strategy was always "Bet but don't bet the farm.  Don't take so much risk that you can never recover. Take calculated risks."

The comment on big companies was as a place to learn, not necessarily sign on for a life term.  Also, they might pay for an MBA.  Or you may figure out that the people running the thing are so stupid that you could do it better and make a fortune.  I think that is what Bill Gates did with IBM.  Not sure he worked there but he sure took advantage of them. 

3) Go back and get an MBA (possibly part-time while I work) and use

the MBA to transition into a new role.

Alas, a business reality.  If you really want to be a manager in a big company, you have to get an MBA.   Sorry.  But Carl already knows this or he wouldn't mention the part time thing.  Go for it, Carl.   Find a company that will pay your way, grit your teeth and slog on.

My currently employer will probably pay part of my way – they've hinted at it during past reviews – but it's not certain.   In that case, I'll have to do it part time though (which some people think is a bad idea – though I can't seem to figure out why).  The previously mentioned advice that I've gotten from successful late-career people is NOT to get the MBA.   They don't think it's valuable… though they also question the value of moving into management until later in my career.

While I haven't made a final decision yet, your advice has been on my mind over the past few days.   Since it wasn't exactly what I expected, it has really challenged me to start re-thinking the options.  If you are interested in weighing in on the pros and cons of the three options   (1. Big company, 2. Start a business, 3. Get an MBA) that would be great!  I'd be especially interested in your take on full-time MBA, vs. part-time MBA.   But in any case, I do appreciate your existing feedback. 

As far as the MBA goes, I was stating the reality.  Big companies give the best jobs to people with MBA's.  Sorry, not my rules, their rules.  If you want to get to be a brand manager at Pepsico, you better have a MBA.  Or Colgate.  Or P&G.  Or Coke.  Again, not my rules. 

As far as successful people without MBA's...yeah, there are tons of them.  Thomas Edison didn't finish high school and look at him.  Again, the reality is that big companies require MBAs for the best jobs.  If you want to get on the train, you have to get your ticket punched.  Just depends on which train you want to get on.

As far as part time vs. full time, this has generated a bit of mail that I will go into later.  For now, I have no problem with part time given the school is worth it.  When I was in Chicago a fair number of my co-workers went to Northwestern or UC.  And the company paid for it, all of it.  The attendees paid for it too as they dragged themselves to work each day.

Full time or part time doesn't matter to me.  Again, I'm just saying that an MBA is a hoop that traditional companies make you jump through.

Enough about MBA's.

And back to Yogi--When you come to fork in the road, take it.  What Yogi was really saying is Do Something.  I don't worry about Carl.  He will and is.  He's thinking about it, he's looking at his options, he's travelling and seeing what is out there.  He's also talking it over with his girl friend.  He will make the Decision.  Right or wrong?  Who knows?  Who cares?

The people I worry about are the ones I view as paralysed.  They have too many options or too few or no chances or too many or they are victims or they don't know what to do or don't know how to do it.  So they do nothing.  Nothing leads to nothing.  Doing something is a risk.  A greater risk is doing nothing.  Enough preaching.

One final note.  I loved The Devil Wears Prada.  Actually, I hated it at the beginning because I remembered I had a boss that made Meryl Streep look like Mother Theresa.  But I loved it when the newbie went to the gay guy and said, basically, make me one of them.  She committed.  A lot of people view this as getting in bed with the enemy.  I viewed it as a movie that finally had a bit of reality to it.  And she learned what she really want to do.  To be successful, to find out what you really want to do in the long run, you have to commit.

The Roaming Gnome Builds A House

Sorry about being late but had to meet a framer to talk about this new house.  Nothing like pulling up to work site in 103 degree Texas weather feeling like an idiot, or a complete fraud, or both.  But with plans in hand I slid out of the truck and went looking for John Hughes, the frame guy.  For those not in the know, the framer frames the house.  Easy so far.

John had his head stuck in the back of a truck trying to get a balky compressor to compress.  He was sweating and so was I.  One of his guys saw me, nudged John and said something.  Probably "Hey, the idiot that thinks he can build his own house is here."

Suddenly I felt like the Roaming Gnome.  "Would you chaps feel like framing a little cottage for the missus and me.  You would?  Oh, goody."  Actually I mumbled my way through an introduction which wasn't necessary since I had done that over the phone earlier.  John was eyeing the plans I had rolled up in my hand.  Yep, just like in the Chevy commercials--unrolled the plans and put them on the hood where they promptly blew off.  Grabbed some tools to hold them down and John looked.  And looked.  And looked.  And I tried to keep my mouth shut but the Roaming Gnome busted out again.  "It's a frightfully simple plan, old chap.  Nothing to it."  John kept looking.

Looked at the front outside elevation, then the back outside elevation, then the first floor floor plan then the second floor floor plan.  Finally he said, "What's the pitch?"  I wasn't sure what I had to pitch when I realized he meant the roof pitch.  "8 in 12, I think."  "No, he said, looks lie 12 in 12.  Pretty steep." I was pretty proud of myself for just remembering what pitch meant--8 in 12 means that the if you walk off 12 feet, the roof would be 8 feet over your head at that point.  A 12 in 12 means walk 12 feet, the roof would be 12 feet over your head.  Conversely a 6 in 12 means a less steep roof and so on. 

"What about trusses?"  I don't know, what about them?  Seems there is a large space for the living room and the dining room.  John likes plywood trusses, not web trusses.  He explains the difference and the cost can't be that much more so fine with me. 

"You want the house wrapped?" he asked.  "Wrapped?" I almost said when I realized he meant weatherproofed with the white stuff that is 'wrapped' around the house.  I could tell he didn't think much of the stuff but I thought and muttered, "Lots of people doing it."  "We do it better, paper don't keep out nothing."  Seems he foams the plywood with insulation and I had to agree that foam seemed more substantial than 'paper.'  He also uses reflective barriers on the roof plywood so thought he was pretty much up on the energy saving side of the business.

That's about it.  He looks around and rubs his chin, takes off his baseball cap, wipes his brow and proclaims, " I get about $4 a square."  I almost said "Square what?" but figured it out.  So we did the numbers.  Total slab space is 3,918 square feet so that times $4 is $15,672.  Good, bad, I don't know but I have a number.  And that is progress.

The book says get three estimates and I have calls into other guys.  But so far John is ahead on points.

The moral of the story.  I believe we, we being over educated office folk, all have deep seated fears of guys that build things.  Because we can't, or think we can't, do it.  Plus we might get screwed and we don't know what we are doing.  I always have to force myself to look at it the other way around--hey, he's the guy that has to make a living doing this stuff.  I'm a paying customer.  I should get service.

Make's sense but we don't think that way.  Well, I have to if I'm going to get this house for what I want to get it for.  So forge ahead.  And as usual the aniticipation far exceeded the actual event--John seems like a pretty nice guy.

The Cincinnati Kid

Carl from Cincinnati writes--

Bill,

Congratulations on finishing your book!  I enjoy reading following
your blog, and put into into practice much of what you post!

In catching up on some reading, in your post titled "We're Back"
(
http://askunclebill.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/were_back.html) -
you made two points that I actually had a bit of a hard time trying to
figure out if you serious or not about.

Concerning San Francisco - "nobody can afford to live there", and
Chicago - "you can't afford that place either"... I agree, you're
right, both places are very expensive.  But both are big cities and my
impression is that they have career opportunities that might not be as
available in other markets.

Okay, so why am I bothering to ask you this?

Career advice.

Right now I work in the Cincinnati, Ohio area in IT (Senior Systems
Admin at a company with 50 employees).  I've lived here my entire life
- not out of any particular interest for the area, rather it's worked
from a career standpoint so far.  For the area, I'm doing okay... $65k
4-years out of college.  Two promotions since starting.  Plus an
additional $10k in side-work.  I'm debt free, but still renting.  For
the market, and in a primarily technical role, income tends to max out
in the low $70s.  So I've reached a point where I have to (and
continually do) re-evaluate my career.  In considering my next career
move, I've interviewed in the San Francisco area (actually, Monterey),
and talked to contacts in Chicago.  Both areas are great, and I'd
enjoy doing what I do now, in either location.  That being said, the
real cost of living in both locations seems to be more substantial
then the anticipated pay increase would compensate for.

From a career standpoint, I need to do one of three things to advance.

1) Same job in a larger market, at a company with room for continued
advancement (larger company).
2) Start a business where I'm at, serving a market that I anticipate
being successful in.
3) Go back and get an MBA (possibly part-time while I work) and use
the MBA to transition into a new role.

[Or, perhaps  just quit.  Travel for 6-months and decide what I really
want to do with the rest of my life (probably far more romantic
sounding than in actual practice)].

Do you really consider Chicago and San Francisco so cost prohibitive
as to be unaffordable for a young person?  Salary.com suggests the
cost of living increase would be manageable - but personal experience
hints at otherwise.  I want to make sure I keep progressing from both
financial, and career standpoints.

Looking back it's possible - indeed likely - that I over analyzed your
post - since your main point had nothing to do with Chicago or San
Francisco.  It really just struck me because those are two places I'm
actively interested in.

In any case, thanks for the blog.  Any input would be appreciated.

Carl

Great comments which we will take one by one.  First thanks for liking the site and the compliments.  I'm a sucker for compliments and will go the extra mile for anyone that says anything nice about what I do.  So thanks again, Carl.

First, the comments about San Francisco and Chicago were throwaway lines.  They can't be serious or no one would live there.  Believe me, there are a lot of people living in both places so they must afford it somehow. 

The truth is I'm just in a different mode than Carl and most of you.  One, I'm older and the career thing kind of took care of it's self.  Not that it wasn't a lot of work at the time but now I can chose not to live in Chicago or San Francisco.  I do live in a major metro area but WAY on the outskirts where I have a nice house, pool, stable, pool house, on three acres.  (As a side note, I built the stable, pool house and pool so it ain't like I had the help do it.)  And the whole thing is worth...less than a two bedroom, one bath house in San Jose.  Or Winnetka.  And what am I doing?  Building a new, bigger house that won't be worth as much as a three bedroom house in San Jose.

That said, Would I advise Carl to move?  In a heartbeat.  To either place.  Or maybe New York.  Or London.  Or Toronto.  Or Houston.  I'm a big believer in moving and trying new things.  Scares you to death but that's what makes life interesting.  Trying to write a book was scary and rejection, boy do I know about that, is pretty demoralizing but I just got so mad I plunged ahead.  Same with moving.  Why do it?  Because you need to learn new things and grow.  Maybe you will be back in Ohio in six months but at least you tried it.

Second reason--money tends to slide around and accomodate change.  Huh?  Say you move to Chicago and live in an apartment on the north side.  Leave the car with the folks and take the El. I bet Carl spends a lot of money on entertainment and meals in Cincinnati.  He can afford to--he makes a lot for the area.  In San Francisco, that goes out the window.  Hiking, biking and eating hot dogs with friends (ok, organic hot dogs) will take the place of going out all the time.  Money slides around to fit the budget.  There is one risk here--lifestyles may not change if the individual starts maxing out the credit card.  That is a no-no.  Carl sounds like a pretty steady character so doubt this will happen. 

Now for career.  Carl is a smart guy, he figured out the business model.  He's an IT guy.  Everybody starting out is a guy, even women.  You are a finance guy, a marketing guy, an accounting guy, or an IT guy.  You may even get mixed up--I was a finance guy and hated being called an accounting guy by an ignorant marketing guy.  But as people move up the ladder, they tend to become managers, not guys.  Carl needs to get where he can become a manager, not a guy. That is what Carl is talking about, I think.  If he is not, he should be.

Let's look at the facts.  Four years out of school, two promotions (congratulations), but with a small firm.  Plus Carl is smart enough to figure out that salaries flatten out in Cincinnati.  He is also smart enough to figure out that a job in SF or Chicago will pay more but not enough probably to offset the cost of living.

Uncle Bill's advice--look at the job content and see if it will catapult you into the future.  IT in a small firm means a steady paycheck but isn't the route to the chairman's office.  Alway's look a step ahead.  My first real job was a division job.  Since I was in corporate headquarters I quickly figured out that corporate was the power base and wormed my way in.  Stayed nine years.  Then said the hell with Chicago (Chicago is a great town but too big for me--even at three years old I knew my son was not going to have an easy time at New Trier High School. Plus I was tired of the cold.)

Stayed eleven years at the new job down here and then, with the kids in high school, took a flyer.  Why?  Because the job had a VP title.  Carl should look to Chicago and San Francisco as job opportunities that will get him on the track to manager.  If they are laterals for a bit more money, forget them.

Let's look specifically at Carl's three options.

1) Same job in a larger market, at a company with room for continued
advancement (larger company).

Not bad.  Having Intel or Apple or Sun (are they still around?) on your resume will look better than Cincinnati Widget.  Plus, by definition, big companies offer more opportunities.  Look for a company that promotes from within.  Believe me, this is getting harder but companies still exisit that do it.  At this stage in Carl's career, I would look for a few years in a multinational looking for opportunities on the inside.

2) Start a business where I'm at, serving a market that I anticipate
being successful in.

Carl is a go-getter.  That is good and I feel he will be successful at whatever he does.  But, and there is always a but, he may learn a lot from a stint at a big company.  These people aren't stupid--you have to be smart to succeed.  You can learn a lot in a big company if you pay attention.

3) Go back and get an MBA (possibly part-time while I work) and use
the MBA to transition into a new role.


Alas, a business reality.  If you really want to be a manager in a big company, you have to get an MBA.  Sorry.  But Carl already knows this or he wouldn't mention the part time thing.  Go for it, Carl.  Find a company that will pay your way, grit your teeth and slog on.

Or, perhaps  just quit.  Travel for 6-months and decide what I really
want to do with the rest of my life (probably far more romantic
sounding than in actual practice).

Hey, Carl, when you find out what you want to do with the rest of your life, let me know.  I need some help in this area as well.  Don't think Carl will go this route.  Too ambitious.

Feel like I kind of let Carl down here.  No answer like DO THIS.  Well, one thing, don't reject any place because of living costs--but do calculate the potential payback.  If the payback is not there in career advancement, don't do it. You will never know for sure going in but, again, that is what makes life interesting.  Plus, mistakes, especially career mistakes, can be reversed.  You learn from mistakes.

So, Carl, take Yogi Berra's advice.  When you come to a fork in the road, take it.  But do an analysis first.  Pros and cons, money, lifestyle, potential, family, adventure, surviving.  Then make your decision and jump off the cliff.

Enough lecturing.  Let me know what you decide.  Also would love to weigh in on the pros and cons.  But remember, this advice is worth what is cost you.

Running Out of Energy

Got a great question from Carl in Cincinnatti (sp?) that is so great I want to give another day to think about it before we go to print.  In summary, Carl is trying to figure out a career path that may lead to to San Francisco or Chicago or staying put.  My comments about San Francisco and Chicago being way expensive shook Carl up a bit and we need to study the issue a little more seriously.  For starters we will review Category 9 about buying a house for 30% off.  Also, Category 6 on renting.  But we will do that tomorrow.

Because something caught my eye this morning in the paper.  Headline--"There's Plenty Of Oil Now, Expert Says."  Wow.  I thought we were out, or near out.  The first paragraph says that the oil supply is not in a 'peak oil' mode, demand will not out run supply and the supply of oil may increase by 25% by 2015.

Where is this report?  Buried on the last page of the business section. 

Where is this oil coming from?

-unconventional sources such as ultra deep drilling in the Gulf of Mexico,

-off shore of Africa and South America,

-heavy oils out of Venezuela and Canada,

-Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia?  I thought they were almost dry.  Guess not.  Not great news about Venezuela but Canada isn't exactly a revolutionary, rogue nation.  Africa and South America.  Ok with me.

The report comes from the Cambridge Energy Research Associates run by Daniel Yergin who is a pretty heavy hitter in the energy bidness.  Yergin's report refutes two popular theories--one is the 'peak oil' theory which holds that worldwide crude production has already peaked and will soon decline "plunging the world into high prices, shortages, and political calamity."

The other theory is that Saudi Arabia will soon become a worthless sandbox with no oil. 

As far as theory number one Yergin "said flatly that the much discussed 'peak oil' is not imminent."  I guess not if he says production is going up 25%.  As far as Saudi Arabia goes, it appears that SA has more production capacity that will be brought on line within the decade increading production from the current daily production of 9 million barrels to 12.5 barrels per day by 2010.  Hmmm, doing the math that is within three and a half years and an increase of, let's see here, 12.5 minus 9 is 3.5 divided by 9 is ...hey, that's up over a third and a third is more than 30%.  That's a lot.

So maybe the world is not coming to an end next week. 

There are two important takeaways from this report.  And it is not the fact that oil production is going up. 

The first takeaway is that good news or, at least good news that runs against conventional thinking, ends up on the back page if reported at all.  Remember the news business mantra--if it bleeds, it leads.  If not, it goes on the back page.

The second takeaway is that economists usually look at existing variables and discount or ignore innovation.  The leading proponent of this was Malthus (sp? again) who a long time ago projected mass starvation because the population was growing but food production was not.  Well, we all know what happened.  The American farmer said the hell with that and we have enough to eat and there are a lot more people around.

So listen to Yergin and discount the naysayers.  Reminds me of a boss I had that went almost clinically depressed.  He read the paper every day on the train into work.  He quit reading the paper and his depression went away.  Maybe he shouldn't have stopped reading the paper but his world, and mine, sure got better when he did.

Another good thing about Yergin's report is that Carl will have enough gas to travel to Chicago and San Francisco.  Will talk about that tomorrow.

Supply and Demand

Aramark did it this morning.  Toys R' Us did it.  Dunking Donuts, Hertz, and Burger King as well.  Retailers are doing it like crazy--Linen 'n Things, Burlington Coat Factory, Petco, Sports Authority.  Even Nieman Marcus, I think.  What is it?

They have gone private.  What does that mean and what does it mean for you?  Let's spend a little time on what it means and more time on what it means for you.  Going private is a public company being approached, or approaching, a buyout group and saying buy my shares and take me off the market.  Why would a company do that? 

One reason--it is getting creamed in the market place.  Sears and KMart are examples.  So is Toys R' Us which was getting smacked around by Wal Mart.  But these companies still have value--probably a pretty good cash flow but not up to Wall Street standards.  Then there is real estate.  Sears and KMart and Toys R' Us have a fair amount of value tied up in real estate that never shows up on their balance sheet or in their valuations.

Reason two--sick of being public.  Sarbanes Oxley, reporting requirements, shareholders--who needs it?  Probably not the overriding reason but a nice little sweetner for management.

Reason three--the contraction strategy.  Wall Street does not reward companies for shrinking but shrinking might just be the best thing to do.  Let's say you are Toys R' Us.  First a store, then another, another and pretty soon you are printing money.  Go public and the stock soars.  But need more revenue and growth so another store, and another and another.  Wal Mart wakes up and starts selling toys.  Your sales growth slows, too many stores, Wal Mart breathing down your neck.  The stock tanks.  What to do?  Cut back to the most profitable stores, lay off a bunch of people, slash staff and print money.  Right? Right but Wall Street will kill you.  But a private investor will go for it because 1) they get the company at a low stock price, 2) they don't care about Wall Street, at least for now, and 3) they don't care about bad publicity from layoffs or store closures.  Because they are private.  Demonstrate all you want, they could care less.  (Thinking about that I wonder if anybody at Wal Mart is thinking about going private--they must be sick and tired of trying to satisfy critics who will never be satisfied.)

Anyway that is why companies go private.  There is one more reason which we will go into in a minute.

What does this mean for you?  I mean it is not like you know anyone at Bain or Texas Pacific or Carlyle who will cut you in on the action.  And you don't have enough money to buy in to any of these groups. 

What is a young investor to do?  Answer--nothing.  All this activity is actually good for you because if you are investing in your 401k and in the market in general, you will be rewarded.  Why?  Because of supply and demand. 

Huh?  Simple.  When supply goes down, demand goes up.  It works for gasoline, collectibles, food, electricity.  And stocks.  When these companies go private, the supply of stock, all together class, goes down.  Supply shrinks.  And demand for the remaining stocks in circulation will go up.  Demand means higher prices which means more money for you. 

Conversely, when supply goes up, demand goes down after a while and prices go down.  Don't believe that?  Look at 2000.  The tech boom.  Anything that had .com after it was going public.  The market couldn't get enough of it until SUPPLY outpaced DEMAND.  The fact that most of the companies were ether didn't help either.  The market went into a tailspin. When you start seeing a bunch of IPO's coming on the market, get ready to run.

Because that is what most of these buyouts are about.  Slash staff (harder to do now because most companies aren't fat anymore), close stores, get cash flow up and go public, again.  Or maybe they will just feast on the cash flow.  Doubt it but don't worry about it for now.

Just be glad to see these companies going off Wall Street.  When they do, the value of what you own goes up. 

And don't feel too bad about missing out on the returns generated by the private investors.  Time magazine, the source for most of this, states the annual return for buyout funds over the last twenty years is 13.3% vs. 11% for the S&P.  A pretty big difference statistically but not overwhelming.  And you can't get in the game anyway so why worry?  Actually, you are probably in the game because pension funds and mutual funds invest in buyout funds.

But the takeaway is don't worry about the shrinking stock market.  It is good for you.  But keep your eye on when it starts to expand.  Increased supply means a drop in demand.

Told you finance was simple.

Self Importance

I never understood this but it seems a lot of people screw up interviews by being self important.  Here's an article to prove it.  http://www.careerjournal.com/columnists/manageyourcareer/20060802-managingyourcareer.html?cjpartner=mktw

Let's take a look at a few things that canditates do wrong.

Leave an interview because the interviewer is late.  Seems in the example a human resource canditate (hmmm) got ticked off when the future boss was late and the canditate went home mad.  Hey, stuff happens.  In fact, a canditate can use this to their advantage.  The interviewer will fell bad about, or should feel bad about, being late and give you a break in the interview.  Plus, what is the hurry?  I always planned interviews for the afternoon or took the whole day off.  Never know when you are going to be stuck in traffic or somebody is going to be late.  Make the interview the last thing or only thing for the day.

Always act like a guest.  Pretty good advice.  Be on your best behavior, like the first time in somebody's house.  I was always looking around trying to figure out if these people looked happy or miserable or who was who.  As Yogi Berra said, you can learn a lot by looking around.

Some of these are kind of stupid or at least should be pretty evident up front.  Escorted to a partner's office doorway, you march right in -- even though he's engrossed in a confidential call. Bad idea. Wait outside until he finishes.  I think most people would figure this out on their own.

The receptionist notices whether you read your National Enquirer rather than her employer's annual report. She may also keep tabs on your hygiene habits. Ms. Vell once worked for a small Boston search firm where the receptionist alerted partners if candidates using the guest bathroom failed to wash their hands. (She could hear the faucet.)  This is a bit of a stretch but does back up one thing you should be learning by now--do what you mom told you.  Mom told you to wash your hands so do it--you might get a job.

You chat briefly, repeatedly peeking at your BlackBerry. Another dumb move. Twice in the past six months, aspiring vice presidents have pulled out these email devices during interviews with Dean Bare, a managing partner of recruiters Stanton Chase International in Atlanta. "It's time to turn that off," he sternly told them. I don't own a Blackberry, I don't even have a cell phone so this won't happen to me.  I have to believe that most readers would be smart enough to leave all that junk in the car.  No interruptions.  I believe that a lot of people check those things to look important.  When I see it I think they can't manage their time or their people.

You also lose credibility if you are late for interviews with hiring managers -- or leave too soon. A well-qualified executive committed both blunders when he sought a roughly $450,000 post at a global entertainment concern.

He arrived early for his 1 p.m. appointment with the head of human resources. He asked to use a conference room to make an important call. It lasted until 1:15. He didn't apologize to the HR executive about the delay. Following their abbreviated session, she was ready to take him to his 2 p.m. session with the finance chief.

That didn't happen on time either. "I have a 2 p.m. conference call I have to get on," the potential recruit announced, ducking back into the conference room. The call took 40 minutes. After finishing his second delayed interview, he refused to meet again with the human-resources chief because he needed to catch a flight.

The prospect's boorish behavior struck company and search-firm officials as a fatal red flag. "We said, 'This person has a real strong etiquette and judgment problem,' " recollects David W. Gallagher, a managing director for Boyden Global Executive Search in Atlanta.

This person not only had an etiquette and judgement problem, this person had a stupidity problem. 

He suspects many ill-mannered job seekers suffer from a similar, excessive sense of self-importance. "If you're going to interview for a job, interview 100%," Mr. Gallagher advises. "Put everything else out of your mind."

Not bad advice.  I like the advice about being a guest better.  Actually, I went into every interview wanting to get an offer.  Even if was going to turn it down, I wanted that offer because it was a competition and I wanted to win.  You don't win by being self important.  You win by being your best.

Creative Destruction

A fairly good article in Forbes about Google, something called Zillow and economist Joseph Schrumpeter. 

First for Schrumpeter.  Joseph Schrumpeter.  Joe was a Viennese economist born in 1883, dying in 1950.  He got kicked out of Austria by the Nazis and ended up at Harvard.  Don't hold that against him as he invented the concept of "creative destruction."  Creative destruction means that things we think of as institutions or pillars of our economy will actually be replaced by something better.  That replacement will not be painless but in the end will be better for the economy, and us, as a result.  One painful example is outsourcing--if somebody can do it cheaper in India or China, it will happen.  The bad thing is a 'loss' of jobs here but more jobs in China and India which will improve their economies and make them economic allies rather than enemies that want to eliminate us.  The reason 'loss' is in quotes is that with 4.9% unemployment in the US, there cannot be currently a lot of job 'loss' here.  I'm sure I will get objections on this from people that can't find jobs but I will stick with it right now.

The article cites Ebay, Google and Zillow as examples of creative destruction.  Ebay has not eliminated garage sales but it has crushed garages sale ads reducing revenues for newspapers.  Big time.  Why put an ad in the paper to attract some stranger to come to your house when you can attract the whole country to your computer? 

The author says Google and Zillow will soon do the same thing for real estate and crush the real estate ad revenues and probably reduce broker's commissions.  Seems these websites will show aerial pictures of your property and give the value of the property.  I tried Zillow on my house.  Got a fuzzy overhead shot and the tax value.  No comps or market value but I'm sure that is coming.  Not all that impressed but I can see this as another version of 'creative destruction.' 

This is not a hard concept to figure out.  Just think Mapquest vs. Mapsco.  Or cell phones vs. land lines.  Cable vs. satellite.  You get the idea.

One thing the author noted that I hadn't thought of is medical care.  He quotes a book by Andy Kessler called "The End of Medicine."  Haven't read it but the thrust is that doctors are inefficient and drive higher medical costs.  Higher costs lead to people looking for lower costs and the money is going to CT scanners.  Put the patient in the oven and scanner figures out what is wrong.  So long, Doc.

So what does all this mean for you, the career newbie?  Be ready for change.  You will be fired, your company will be taken over, your company will go out of business, your job will be outsourced, you will be a victim of Creative Destruction. 

You will also be rewarded by Creative Destruction.  New jobs and opportunities will be created.  So don't look back, be prepared for change, and embrace it.  You might as well, you can't stop it.  Joe was right. 

GoogleAdSense

  • Adsense3
  • Adsense2
  • AdSense