Category Archives: rants

The USA is a Third World Country (and by now, Canada is too!#) (Bad Billionaires 1/3)

Why do I say this? Because the “official” US poverty rate is over 11.5% and the official US (long term average) unemployment rate (U3) has been averaging 5.7%, and we both know the official rates (far) undercut the reality since:

  • in big cities and wealthy states, you couldn’t afford rent and food if all you made was $1 above the poverty line; and the US leads all nations with the highest overall child poverty rate of 20.9% (Source: Confronting Poverty)
  • the official unemployment rate (U3) excludes part time workers seeking full time, people who have not been able to secure a job in more than a year, went back to school (even part time) in an effort to level up, etc. and this (U6) rate is usually 50% to 60% higher (putting the long-term average U6 rate at 10.1%)

None of these statistics should exist in a first world country!

According the World Bank, of the 162 countries they track with a poverty line, 18 have a lower percentage of people living in poverty, including pre-war Ukraine, Belarus, Vietname, Kazakhstan, and Algeria. Something is VERY wrong here!

According to Trading Economics, 68 countries have less unemployment than the United States, with Uganda, Liberia, Vietnam, and Mexico included in the countries under 3%! Something is VERY wrong here!

According to UNICEF, there are 34 countries with a lower child poverty rate than the USA. THIRTY FOUR! Something is TOTALLY FUCKED UP here. You are (way) better off having a child in Slovenia, Czechia, Poland, or Croatia than the good Ol’ US of A.

Moreover, if you’re a blue collar worker or a low-tier white collar worker, you’re also screwed since you’ll never be able to pay off your student loans as almost everything you make will go on rent and food. And even if you’re true white collar middle class, good luck buying a house or sending your kids to college.

While all the economists and politicians want to tell you how great things are because the averages keep going up and up, this is all a facade to prevent you from finding out the truth that things have actually getting worse for you since the eighties (when “trickle on”*, which the Republicans like to call “trickle down”, economics were introduced) because the median is not getting better. (In good years, it’s barely holding steady.) The problem with averages is that they include everyone, which includes billionaires that are collectively worth more than 6 Trillion dollars. (If Bezos moved to a small town with under 1,000 people where the average income was 35,000, the average income per person would suddenly be over ONE Million dollars, while the median would stay the same. It’s all lies, damn lies, and statistics.)

The problem is that our buying power has decreased considerably since the 70s (which was the last time things were really good for the average American) as our median family income has not kept up with rising costs (which should not be a surprise as the federal minimum wage in the US has not increased in 15 years). The relative cost of a house has almost doubled, and the cost of sending our children to a community college or trade school has almost tripled.

Here’s a simple table to break it down for you.

Year Median Income Median House Price X times Median Income
1975 13720 39300 < 3X
2020 76600 391900 > 5X

And yet another simple table:

Year Median Income Average Tuition % Median Income Harvard Tuition % Median Income
1975 13720 542 4% 5350 39%
2020 76600 9488 13% 47730 62%

When you break it all down, relatively speaking, the cost of almost everything has increased significantly since the 1970s. The only budget item that has stayed relatively flat (in the 10% to 15% of median household income) is food for a family of 4, but that’s only looking at the numbers. Today, most Americans can only afford cheap (ultra) processed foods, and even Fox News is now warning us about those! (If you were to compare spending on healthy food baskets, the buying power does not remain constant.)

In other words a significant number of you are poor (and much worse off than the majority of OECD Countries [Confronting Poverty]), unemployed, or both, and the way things are, this number that has been rising for decades is going to keep rising unbounded unless something is done. And until that something is done and these numbers start decreasing and level off at acceptable levels (5% max for poverty and 3% max for U6 unemployment), as far as I’m concerned, the US (and Canada, which switched from following the UK’s lead to America’s lead a few decades ago), is a third world country!

So what can you do about it? Some would say ban billionaires (because no one needs that much money and it should be shared more equitably) while others would say fix government (and ban SuperPACS and lobby groups that have too much influence over governments and divert them from your welfare to theirs) and others still fix economics (and what it actually measures), but neither is a solution on its own. It’s not about fixing the wealth imbalance (it’s always been there, it always will be), or ending lobbying (although we probably should end SuperPACs and limit funding levels from any individual or corporation), or changing the definition of economics (because, thanks to lies, damn lies, and statistics, there will always be ways to corrupt the measures and mislead the public), but about increasing the prosperity of the average blue collar and white collar worker, getting them back to 1970 levels, and putting them back on the path to increase prosperity (compared to the majority of the world and making the USA a true first class country again).

How? That’s going to be hard, especially since you’re one of the last “democracies” (well, not really, you’re a republic) still on a two-party system (which is easily corrupted and has been for decades and that’s why you’re not a first world country anymore), but if a party would come along and focus on the right things, it wouldn’t be too hard to right the course … especially since productivity of the average worker has increased almost fourfold since the 1970s due to American ingenuity and grit.

But first, let’s babble about those Billionaires and why they simultaneously are and aren’t the problem. Stay tuned.

 

* Republicans have been telling us that “trickle-down” economics are good for us, when history has shown time and time again that they are not. In reality, those Billionaire tax cuts are “trickle on” economics, because that’s what the Republicans and their Billionaire buddies are doing to you, and if you don’t understand what that means, then type “golden shower” porn site into Google and it should bring up links to at least 30 sites that should have very graphic visual descriptions that demonstrate precisely what “trickle on” economics really is! (I asked Google how many golden shower porn sites and it said top 30, so I am assuming it will deliver at least 30 links to you.)

# Statistics Canada is always years behind compared to other countries, with no good data beyond 2021, but the projection for Canada this year was a 10.1% poverty rate!

Technology DOES NOT Solve Your Talent Problem!

And any claims to the contrary are a considerable collection of cow cr@p!

So, needless to say, the doctor was disgusted at this thinly disguised advertorial by, and for, Amazon Business, which said technology, i.e. its platform, would solve your talent problem.

Not even close!

According to the advertorial, which appeared, appallingly, in USA Today:

While some churn may be inevitable, organizations can take steps to ensure their procurement teams are satisfied. One major step is ensuring they have the technology they need to do their jobs effectively.

Which is important, but not a major step.

If you ask people what they want in a job, which Gallup did in a survey to 13,085 US employees in 2022, it was:

  1. A significant increase in income or benefits (64%)
  2. Greater work-life balance and better personal wellbeing (61%)
  3. The ability to do what they do best (58%)
  4. Greater stability and job security (53%)
  5. Vaccination policies that align with my beliefs (43%)
  6. The organization is diverse and inclusive of all types of people (42%)

the doctor would bet with certainty that not a single respondent said “better technology” in their top five wants. As he repeatedly points out, which he did yet again in why do successful solution providers ruin everything by becoming tech companies?, no one wants tech or software … no one. They just want whatever makes their job easier, and that ain’t always fancy new tech.

At best, it’s a minor step that can enhance the ability to do what they do best.

Then it quotes their VP who says that since 74% of leaders seeing digitization as­­ key to better operations, the interpretation must be it’s clear we need seamless, consumer-like experiences in business procurement because this is what we are used to.

No! NO! NO! Joël Collin-Demers recently penned a great post on why we need to stop chasing an “Amazon-like” buying experience for requesters in your business! In short, in business, it’s inefficient, ineffective, and downright unpleasant. As Joël says, it’s the paradox of choice.

B2B is not the same as B2C, it’s never been, and never should be. So assuming that B2C is the solution is just plain wrong. B2B needs different solutions customized for the needs of bulk buyers.

The really depressing part about the article is they quote a lot of studies by reputable organizations with really concerning findings about just how bad the talent problem is and give a lot of good advice on what kinds of technology a Procurement organization should have in place. It’s too bad they chose to wrap it in a layer of cow cr@p and sully what could have been a good article on why a company should have a Procurement solution run by good talent (two different problems, two different arguments). They could have written the most credible piece USA Today ever published on the subject, but instead decided to pen some self-service BS rubbish with bad arguments and known wrong conclusions.

The only good thing the doctor can say about it is at least they didn’t mention the Gen-AI bullcr@p when they talked about the use of AI in procurement and got that part right at least!

Here’s the thing, if you have a talent problem, it usually comes down to one of two reasons:

  • you haven’t been able to / can’t hire enough talent
  • the talent you have is leaving

If you can’t hire enough talent, that’s usually because you can’t attract enough talent, and that’s usually because you aren’t hitting the top 6 points in the gallup poll referenced above. You need to step back and

  • evaluate your standard offer (pay and benefits) against the local & global industry norms
  • analyze your work life balance options
  • assess the freedom and control you give employees to do their job
  • gauge the job security you offer
  • minimize your (lack of) vaccination policy (which, if it exists, should match the jurisdiction in which your employee resides — i.e. you comply with legal requirements, and that’s it — the choice should be theirs)
  • ask yourself if you truly are an inclusive organization (which, FYI, does not mean DEI — see THE PROPHET‘s many rants on why this is not inclusivity as, simply put, opportunity does not imply outcome and DEI only measures outcome, which simply means it is being used in some countries as a new form of legal discrimination)

And if you can’t keep enough talent, you have to consider the top reasons people quit (as captured in a 2021 Pew Research Center survey):

  • low pay, see #1 reason for taking a new job
  • no opportunities for advancement
  • no respect
  • child care issues, see #2 reason for taking a new job
  • not enough work hour flexibility, see #2 reason for taking a new job
  • poor benefits, see #1 reason for taking a new job
  • wanted to relocate, see #3 reason for taking a new job
  • too many hours, see #2 reason for taking a new job
  • too few hours, see #4 reason for taking a new job
  • COVID-19 vaccine required, see #5 reason for taking a new job

Now, do you see “poor technology” anywhere on that list? If you do, get a new prescription and review the lists again. You don’t. That’s because, only a small fraction of people who leave a job will quote technology as one of the reasons (and the doctor would guarantee 99/100 it’s not the primary reason), and it’s probably less than the 14% quoted in the article. If you actually dig up the quote Lakeside Software research study, you see it canvassed 600 executives, IT leaders, and employees on the state of workplace technology and their digital experience. Not only is that a small sample group compared to the Gallup and Pew studies, but that’s not a homogenous sample group of employees (who were only 1/3 of the participants) — as executives and leaders (who probably don’t even have to use a computer) have entirely different reasons for taking and leaving jobs than the workforce! And even if the statistic was that high, you should be a heck of a lot more worried about why the other 6 employees are leaving than the 1 who decides he doesn’t like the tech he’s being forced to use, because you have much bigger problems than not having the absolute best tech!

Anyway, if you want more insights into Talent Recruitment, Retention, and Revolutionizing, dig into the SI archives.

PROCUREMENT ARE NOT GUINEA PIGS!

Now, a lot of things grind my gears, but if you really want the doctor to fly into a rage, suggest, as this article did, that Procurement, the most critical function in the modern organization, and the one experiencing the greatest dearth of talent, should be used as a guinea pigs … and especially so for bullcr@p AI!

This is the kind of idiocy that, in olden times, would not only get you fired on the spot for suggesting it, but blacklisted by your employer and any other executive who hung out in the same private clubs. No one wants a reckless fool that could tank their business, earnings, and lifestyle … and that’s the last thing a rich, lazy, private club (and private jet) executive wants to happen. (And the last thing your team wants to happen as you put the blame on them and expect them to clean up a mess that the systems you imposed created.)

If you’re going to experiment with AI, especially if you’re just doing it so you won’t miss the bandwagon as it races by (because, as we’ve said before, it has no brakes and no steering if its the Gen-AI bandwagon), pick a function and a supporting task that is much (much) less critical where utter, abysmal failure won’t have any significant business impact … not a function where one mistake in even the most mundane of activities can halt your multi-million dollar production line for weeks (or months) and possibly bankrupt you!

Zombie Companies Exist Too!

Last week the one and only Dr. Tony Bridger, one of the world’s leading spend gurus, said that the correct term for “walking dead companies” is Zombie companies, and I had to correct him.

Historically, a person was walking dead when they had received a mortal wound, infection, poison, or radiation dose and it was just a matter of time before they died. But they weren’t dead yet, and there was always a chance (albeit not a good one) they could survive if they got medical treatment fast enough to stem the bleeding and repair enough of the damage, fight the infection with a miracle drug, get injected with the anti-venom, or get quickly decontaminated and receive enough red blood cell transfusions to have a fighting chance (although, admittedly, not a very good one).

Similarly, a walking dead company is a company that is on the path to insolvency (or acquisition on someone else’s terms if it’s lucky) because of the situation it is in, which is usually because of critical mistakes that were made in the past and still being made today. If such a company suddenly stopped making all identifiable mistakes, found a way to stem the bleeding (of cash), and mitigate some of those past mistakes, there’s still a chance it could survive. It might not be the company it wanted to be, but if it made it to break even, maybe it could find a new direction and a new chance to be great down the road.

In comparison, a zombie company is one that is already dead, and has been dead for years, but refuses to die, usually because of the stubbornness of one or two founders/leaders who believe if they make it just one more year, even though they refuse to do anything different from what they have been doing for years, the company will magically take off. They maintain a heretical, fervent belief that it just needs “more time”, just like the Gen-AI zealots believe it just needs “more cores”, and the American voters think they have a real choice (when, in a two party system, they don’t … or at least won’t until the Super PACs, which give money to both parties to ensure that whomever wins will support their core agenda, are made illegal and eliminated).

You can tell these companies because, in our space,

  • they have been around more than five years, and usually more than seven (before COVID and since the second last M&A frenzy in the late teens when money flowed freely)
  • they have less than 10 (FT) employees if they are primarily a point/module-based solution, and less than 20 (FT) employees
  • their customer count hasn’t increased significantly (i.e. has not increased by more than 10% to 20%) in at least 3 years, i.e. if they’ve managed to sign new customers, they’ve usually lost almost as many
  • they don’t do any marketing whatsoever beyond email campaigns and more often than not the copyright on their website is a year (or more) out of date
  • none of the major analyst firms or analysts have given them much attention in years

And, as any consultant, analyst, or partner who they attempted to engage or who tried to help them can tell you, the situation the company is in is unrecoverable or a non-starter.

(So while the doctor will be giving you

  • a two-part series on what you can do to avoid the graveyard if you admit to some of the dumb company mistakes and
  • an eight-part series on what you can do to avoid the graveyard if you are willing to admit you are making some of the dead company walking mistakes

he will not be doing any follow ups to this article.)

Why are they zombie companies? There are a lot of reasons the doctor can point to, and he’ll include a few examples in this article, but it all boils down to this:

  1. most of these companies are owned by one to three founders/partners who control the company and
  2. the refuse to admit that they need help, or if they admit they need help, they refuse to either do what is necessary, and often won’t even admit they need to do something different to get help

And since I know THE REVELATOR loves details, some examples include, but are definitely not limited to:

  • their messaging will be awful and their marketing strategy non-existent, and even if multiple people outright tell them that, including analysts and (potential) partners who want to help them, the founder/partner will either insist it’s just fine or that they need to keep it in house
  • they couldn’t sell a space heater to a freezing American stuck in Alaska, but won’t hire a full time sales person on salary because “a great salesperson should work only on commission and want to sell our product because it’s so great”, even though a sales person would need to sell a deal a month to make a decent salary on the commission on a 50K modular sale, and since it takes about a year to build a solid pipeline, that sales person is apparently supposed to starve for the first year (with zero stake in the company) … because of future potential
  • they admit they need help tweaking the product to be more appealing to a wider audience, but won’t pay for consulting because the budget is too tight — unless the consultant works on “referrals” … but that’s presales, not product, and not what the consultant they need is going to be any good at, so they don’t get any help … ever!
  • etc.

the doctor could go on, but he won’t, because there’s no point. At the end of the day, these zombie companies desperately need help, and even if they admit it in some capacity, they won’t get it because they don’t want “IP” to leave their “4 walls” (even though they have very little they need to protect as the core of most solutions that implement a core function is about 80% the same), or, usually don’t want to pay for it (because that would either require investment, a loan, and/or ownership dilution … and sales, which they are not getting and haven’t gotten in years, should pay for everything).

The founders/partners are the problem, they can’t be removed, and they’ll stubbornly keep sailing on the edge of the massive whirlpool that’s sure to swallow their ship to the bottom of the sea until they lose that one key customer (that accounts for a significant part of their revenues or referrals to replace the customers they keep losing) or one of the partners becomes unable to continue, at which time the helm will be unmanned and the whirlpool will win. It’s unfortunate for all involved, and it is even more unfortunate that, since they are private, you can’t do hostile takeovers of the ones with good tech that will soon be lost to time.

So that’s it. Zombie companies exist and they can’t be helped and you want to steer further from them then dead companies walking. At least in the case of a dead company walking, if that company admits it and charts a turn around course, it could end up being an okay bet, especially if they can reach profitability or are likely to get acquired intact by a new investor. But the only future for a zombie company, unable to acquire the brains it needs to survive, is to eventually shrivel up and fall apart and return to the dirt from which it came.