
But that doesn’t mean he’s right for the back-office. It’s important to know where your workers fit, and to make sure that they have the right training to do their jobs.

But that doesn’t mean he’s right for the back-office. It’s important to know where your workers fit, and to make sure that they have the right training to do their jobs.
Others, like Accident Prone Cat, should stick to the Supply Management back office.

Lesson to be Learned: Know where your workers fit. Their strengths are not necessarily what you think they are, so conduct a skills assessment. You’ll be glad you did.
Well, if we are talking about the Billy Idol led band Generation X, I think we can all agree that they most definitely rule as Ready Steady Go* is still a punk rock anthem 25 years later!
But if we are talking about the post-boomer, pre-millennial generation, it’s a harder question to answer, but if you look at the recent Generation Gap survey from E&Y (as summarized on The Economist), we’re the most entrepreneurial, the easiest to work with, the best team players, and the best problem solvers — taking 4 out of the 6 rankings. In addition, we’re almost as hard working as the baby boomers and the second most cost-effective employees. From a statistical point of view, we beat out the boomers and trounce Gen-Y. Now, we’re not going to say the E&Y study is conclusive, but it’s suggestive.
Which leads the doctor to ask, does your supply chain have Gen-X at its core?
*Starts at the 1:08 mark.
Now that H.R. 2775 has passed, the US Government is back to work, for now. (The deal only funds the government until January 15, 2014 and only raises the debt ceiling until February 7, 2014, so Americans face the possibility of another government shutdown early next year.) But what does H.R. 2775 really mean? It means that the government may spend “such amounts as may be necessary, at a rate
for operations as provided in the applicable appropriations Acts
for fiscal year 2013 and under the authority and conditions provided
in such Acts, for continuing projects or activities (including the
costs of direct loans and loan guarantees) that are not otherwise
specifically provided for in this joint resolution, that were conducted
in fiscal year 2013, and for which appropriations, funds, or other
authority were made available in the following appropriations Acts.
And what was specifically provided for in the joint resolution that was H.R. 2775? Not much. While the bill is 14 pages, there are only 18 specific numbers specified. Specifically, in decreasing order of magnitude, it allocates the following 10 amounts:
$9.248418 B for the “Department of Transportation – Federal Aviation Administration – Operations”
$4.821181 B for “The Judiciary – Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services – Salaries and Expenses” (and at most 25M shall be available for transfer between accounts to maintain minimum operating levels)
$2.455490 B for the “Department of Veterans Affairs – Departmental Administration – General Operating Expenses Veterans Benefits Administration”
$1.012 B for “The Judiciary – Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services – Defender Services”
$600 M for the “Department of Agriculture – Forest Service – Wildland Fire Management” for urgent wild land fire suppression activities
$273 M to meet the terms of section 251(b)(2)(B)(ii)(III) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. and $469.369 M in additional new budget authority pursuant to 251(b)(2)(B) of such act from the amounts made available for “Social Security Administration, Limitation on Administrative Expenses”
$186 M for the “Maritime Administration – Maritime Security Program”
$36 M for the “Department of the Interior – Department-wide Programs – Wildland Fire Management” for urgent wild land fire suppression activities (with $15 M earmarked for burned area rehabilitation)
$3.1 M for the “Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board”
$174 K payment to Bonnie Englebardt Lautenberg, widow of late New Jersey Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
And it sets the following three limits:
Amends Public Law 100-676 to $2.918 B from 775 M
Limits the amounts made available to carry out section 125 of title 23, United States Code, under Chapter 9 of Title X of Division A of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-2; 127 Stat. 34) to $450 M
Amends Division F of Public Law 112-74 to may retain up to $1.499M instead of $2.499 M
So what does this mean?
Given that it only (re)sets funding levels for about 0.5% of the annual budget (18B of 3.8T), it means its business as usual until the Republicans decide to holde the senate hostage again in January over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The real impact is the 17 days of Government shutdown that preceded it and the detrimental effects it had on your (global) supply chain(s).
In Part I we asked Why Aren’t We Dealing With Extra-Planetary Supply Management on a Daily Basis? We decided that while it was a fair question, it wasn’t an easy one, for a number of reasons which include, but are not limited to, cost, time requirements (for a mission to Mars), and human safety (as some asteroids hurtle through space at 30 km/s, which is roughly 3 times the expected speed of a rocket-propelled shuttle). In Part II, after examining these issues, we decided that the primary reasons we aren’t yet on Mars and dealing with extra-planetary supply management on a daily basis are lack of funding and lack of focus. We also decided that both the US and China should provide this funding and this focus because it would solve a number of problems both countries are facing. Today, we explain how this focus, and a new space-race to Mars, is what is needed.
In our last post, we identified these problems facing the US and indicated that they could all be addressed, if not solved, by a nation-wide focus on a mission to Mars.
Consider the root causes of these issues. The collapsing dollar is primarily due to the stagnating economy and lack of faith therein by the global investment community, unfunded liabilities are due to declining tax revenues, which in turn are due to economic decline and high unemployment, which is due to a lack of jobs, which is partially due to continued job loss to other countries and a lack of talent, which is due to lack of training. The housing crisis is also a result of unemployment and the economy, since it’s a result of people not being able to pay their mortgage and declining property values as a result of a weak economy. The drug war is ongoing partially due to a lack of funding but also due to a lack of technology and programs to detect and prevent drugs from entering the country, and privacy issues are due to a focus on internal vs. external surveillance, which in turn is partially due to an overfunding of military efforts.
So what if you corrected the funding, and focussed on meeting one big challenge, like the US did in the 1960s? You’d need talented people to meet this challenge, so you’d create jobs. Initially you wouldn’t have enough qualified people to fill the jobs, so you’d train them. As a result, employment would be lower and the output per person would be higher, as they’d be trained. In addition, since you’d need to create newer and better technology, and do it quickly in-house, you’d not only bring back manufacturing, but take it to a new level. The housing crisis would vanish. In addition, more employment and more innovation, which would have the side effect of developing new technologies that could be sold around the world, would prop up the economy, increase taxes, and decrease unfunded liabilities. Some of the necessary sensor technology would likely spark advances in technologies that could be applied to border security and drug tracking, without invading privacy, and advances could be made on the war on drugs. The only thing the space race wouldn’t address is the privacy issue, which could be solved simply by turning off the technology that monitors residents and citizens beyond a reasonable point and directing that funding to the new space race.
Moreover, it would also fix many of the problems facing China. As per Mitch Free’s recent article in Forbes on how Nothing Is As It Appears in China, China has some serious problems. The big ones we noted in our last post were:
An appearance of success is important in China. That’s why the streets of Shanghai are lined with beautiful buildings, striking architecture, elaborate homes, and professionally marketed businesses even though the layouts are sparse and the offices bare or even unfinished on the inside. In addition, the government, needs to provide the appearance of stability, productivity, prosperity, and optimism in order to keep calm and order over an unprecedented population living on the edge of poverty. One has to remember that in China, the 1% control nearly 70% of the country’s wealth, which is double what the 1% control in the US. And even the one-child policy is not managing the growth the way the government wants. First of all, those that can afford to pay the fine and have a second child. Secondly, those who can’t afford to pay a fine and have a second child, especially in rural areas, will favour male children, even though families in most rural areas will be permitted a second child if their first child is a female. (This is evident by the fact that China will soon have 30 Million more men than women of marrying age.)
In addition, in order to keep its citizens working, if it has no other option, China will not only keep factories producing goods that the market doesn’t need or want, but will keep building entire cities in preparation for an urbanization that just doesn’t happen. For example, one Chinese State Owned Enterprise (SOE) produced 60,000 machines in the last year that are manually operated for a global market that only buys automated machines. Even though the market is no longer there, the machines were produced just to keep workers employed. In addition, in an effort to get rural citizens into affordable urban housing, China has been building as many as 10 new cities a year, some the size of New York and London, to accomodate hundreds of thousands or millions of residents, that never arrive. These beautifully planned, fully finished “ghost cities” designed to accomodate large populations only have a few thousand residents, who are primarily infrastructure employees and construction workers. (Forensic analyst Gillem Tulloch estimates there may be as many as 64 million empty apartments in Chinese ghost towns.)
Now imagine what would happen if China declared that its mission was to be the first country to land on Mars? It would likely start by taking all of that money being used to build “ghost cities” and directing it at R&D establishments. It would move the brighter workers out of the factories and into R&D labs and re-tool the factories producing useless machines to produce proto-types and components for rockets, shuttles, and other space vehicles. It would be able to keep just as many people employed, but it would be working towards a meaningful, useful goal. In addition, it would increase its rate of innovation, improve its GDP, and not only cement itself as the world’s second largest economy, but accelerate towards the point where it could potentially overtake the US, which would make it enormously successful in the eyes of its citizens and allow it to not only save, but gain, face in Asia (where face is important). And if it happened to figure out how to successfully create workable, maintainable artificial gravity in a manner that was hydroponic friendly, it could be the first to colonize Mars, which could help to solve its population problem (especially if it can also figure out how to mine water from asteroids).
The only problem that isn’t directly addressed is corruption, but if the population is focussed on progress, and not capital gain, corruption is less of a problem.
So bring on the space-race to Mars. The world will benefit! (A rising tide lifts all boats. And what tide is bigger than the tide that controls 1/3 of the world’s economy?)