Thursday, July 17, 2014

Ascribed Value




As a people become more affluent, the influence of the price factor declines.  The supply and demand paradigm loses potency and becomes less valuable as a tool in much of the analysis. This is because market decisions are not based on price.  Or, buying is superseded by spending.

In “The Visible Hand” I wrote that the rich can handle price increases but not supply shortages.  This article deals with price.

Under normal economic models, the law of supply and demand states:  When demand exceeds supply, prices rise. When supply exceeds demand, prices fall.  That, of course is still valid.  However, there is more to it than that. 


Theory + Case Method.


To adjust to the market forces, if prices increase, the demand will taper off as people find prices to high and prices will level off or began to fall.


Case

Avocados sell for $2.00

Consumers do not buy avocados at $2.00

The avocados begin to turn.

The manager of the market cuts the price to 99 cents (when no one wants them).


I’ve seen this failed pricing policy repeated too often over the years.  Now, avocados are priced to sell. 



However, with rising affluence, demand does not abate as prices rise.  In this scenario, people who can afford them, buy the avocados at $2.00. The rich absorb the price increases. Then, to exploit the demand, avocado prices increase artificially to $2.50.  The rich buy them to serve a much more lavish lunch.


Of course, food is perishable and avocados are not a staple. E.g. Bread, milk, mayonnaise, cereal, peanut butter, baloney, tuna fish, and so on.


Back to the Paradigm


As supply falls and demand does not abate as the rich absorb the price increases, the increases place a greater hardship on those who fall between rich and poor.  Example: gasoline prices rising from $3.39 a gallon to $3.89 a gallon.


The poor buy less, or buy something else, or—as with petrol—stay home.  As this happens, one or two of two things will happen.


The absorption of price increases and the increase in purchasing and demand shifting will lessen the demand for that which is in greater supply (or less demand) forcing prices down and sellers revenues along with them.

The rich will buy (at an attractive price) what is out of demand favour either for the purposes of conspicuous consumption or speculation. This will further hurt the poor. 


At this juncture, conspicuous consumption becomes a misnomer because what is being purchased is not being consumed as needed and or as wanted. Ergo: Gratuitous Consumption. Or, in some cases, Ridiculous Consumption.


There is a variation on gratuitous consumption. To explain this, I will create a metaphor.  This is a metaphor!


A $35,000 handbag

A   $1,000 handbag



People are employed to make handbags.

I can hire one person to make a $35,000 handbag.

I can hire 35 people to make one handbag each to sell at $1,000 each.


If I hire one person to make a $35,000 handbag, and pay him $1,000, I have a $34,000 profit.  I cannot pay 35 people $1,000 each to make one handbag each, to sell for $1,000 each.  On a percentage basis, I pay 35 people $28 each and make a $34,020 profit on the enterprise. 

With rising affluence, I can cater to the rich or I can cater to the less affluent. This requires cutting costs (wages) and outsourcing or off-shoring my labour.


NB:  We are not discussing the affluent.

We are discussing rising affluence.  We are discussing a new paradigm.  And, rising affluence for the purposes of this discussion refers not to those who have more, but rather to those who spend more.  (Low key displays of wealth still exist. But you don’t see as much of it anymore.  Then again, you wouldn’t.)

Remember that $1,000 handbag?  That handbag now has a designer inscription and a $2,000 price tag.  What happened?

To understand this, we go to the question, “What makes that $35,000 handbag worth $35,000.  This is a question often asked in the media.  I will tell you.  That handbag tells people you can afford to spend $35,000 on a handbag.


This differs from numismatic value.


The last “antique pocketbook” at auction may sell for $35,000 because people collect them.  They are dwindling in number and availability. And, People believe that they will increase in value, hence increase in price—there will always be a market for them.  Picasso, Monet, Faberge Eggs, Harley Davidson motorcycles, coins, stamps and so on, fall into this category.  For our purposes, antique pocketbooks.

There is a downside to this and this downside is not new.  Holland experienced this in the 1600s when a Tulip bulb sold for the price of a house.  Things did not turn out well.


Now we come to what I call Ascribed Value.  There is no numismatic or speculative (future price + ROI) value, or significant increase in quality that precipitates or necessitates the increase in price.  Rather, speaking  metaphorically or literally, the increase in prices is based on what is written on the handbag—the designer’s logo and the high class price tag appended to the handle.  What causes the price to rise is the imputed value.

DISCLAIMER:   

This is not to suggest that a $35,000 handbag is not a piece of quality merchandise.  It is a piece of quality merchandise.  It has

  • An attractive design
  • Quality materials
  • Skilled craftsmanship.

In addition, there is a big difference between a designer handbag and a handbag with a designer label.


Back to Economics



A higher price was a valid factor when I paid $100 for a pair of Florsheim® shoes rather than $25 for a pair of shoes from the other store.  The Florsheims lasted and lasted and lasted. They were good quality, well made, and stylish.  (I suspect that the Energizer Bunny® wears Florsheim Shoes.

Elois Papillon, a character in the novel St. Lawrence Blues (Un Joualonais sa Joualonie) by the brilliant and highly esteemed French Canadian author Marie Claire Blais, declaimed, “Credit is the poor man’s illusion of wealth.”  Here, too, we move to a new paradigm, a new social class.

With many of the consumer goods sold lately, the market imputes quality based on price and a new social class is creates.  Not the rich, but those who enable the rich to get richer bases solely on the fabricated price of their products.  And the richer they get, the greater the value imputed to their products.

Remember that $1,000 handbag that sold for $2,000?  It now sells for $3,000.  Why?  Because the designer is richer.  That extra $2,000 is “Fabricated Pricing" based on “Imputed Value.”

Quality or Value?  That handbag is worth the extra $2,000 because it costs and extra $2,000 because the designer is now a wealthier ergo a more successful ergo a much better designer.

In short:  The value of the merchandise lies in the price of the merchandise.  The handbag is worth $3,000 because the handbag costs $3,000.

“Then, the label spoke to the quality of the merchandise, now the labels speaks to the price of the merchandise.”  ~ Slim Fairview. 

From, The Quotations of Slim Fairview © 2014 
Robert Asken as Slim Fairview. All rights reserved.


Warmest regards,

Slim


Slimfairview@yahoo.com

PS  I was thinking about economics over the past week and something occurred to me. Perhaps, this is nothing new. Perhaps there have been many theses written about the above. It may even be a much studied paradigm.  If it is, please let me know, I would love to read about it. Sincerely, Slim.


Copyright © 2014 Robert Asken as Slim Fairview
All rights reserved.
 






Wednesday, July 9, 2014

You Are the Solution


Yet again the survey says that CEOs are still complaining that they can’t find good managers. 

Well, I have good new and good new.  The good news first.  I found the problem.  The good news?  You are the solution.  Now that we identified the problem, we can fix it. 


“You can solve problems. You can’t solve opportunities.” 
~ Slim Fairview. 
From, The Quotations of Slim Fairview © 2014. 
Robert Asken. All rights reserved.


Now that the legal language is out of the way….




If you don’t want to hear it from me, listen to Einstein:


“You can’t solve the problem using the same thinking you used to create the problem.”

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”


Then Again…

Einstein also said, “You don’t measure the intelligence of a fish by its ability to climb a tree.”

To which Slim replied, “If you want someone to climb a tree, hire a cat!”



To explain why Einstein is beloved and Slim is not, is easy.

Everyone believes that Einstein’s quotation supports his or her views. They are wrong.  

Everyone believes that Slim’s quotation does not.  They are right.



I’ve divided this article up into three parts.


  • The Solution
  • A Reminder
  • Predictions as to why you will fail to solve your problems yet again.




Slim’s Four Rules of Communication:


  • Precision
  • Concision
  • Enumerate 
  • Specify



Change the name of Human Resources to Personnel.


Have Personnel sort the incoming resumés and forward them to the senior people in the departments where the applicants will be working if hired.


Find a new company to design and build your on-line application website—if I can’t convince you to do away with it altogether.  Hiring good managers is less expensive than hiring bad managers with that cost-effective on-line hiring system.


If you keep the on-line hiring system, make changes to the required fields to make them less constraining.  Also, use a different pre-interview psychological evaluation test or get rid of them altogether.


Fire Managers.  Worry less about employee evaluations and worry more about evaluating the managers who do the employee evaluations.  If your managers are incompetent, then their employee evaluations are worthless. 

Leadership:


“Leaders are defined by their followers.” 

“You can’t lead if you can’t manage.”

“Look behind you. If people are following you, you’re a leader. If they’re not, you’re not.” 

"In a time of stress, the employees will instinctively look to their leader.  This person is not always the boss."

~ Slim Fairview  Copyright © 2019



Eliminate leadership training programmes and seminars, the people who need them, and the people who suggest using them.  This includes the handing out of three-fold brochures and smiley-face key chains! 

Do away with time-wasting, team-building exercises. 

Replace committees with teams.  One good manager will have a team working effectively. One bad manager never will, no matter how many team building programmes you pay for.

Have the person in charge of the team choose them members of the team. 

N.B.  A team does not build a bicycle. One person builds a bicycle. A team builds a thousand bicycles.



REMINDER


You are the one complaining you can’t find good managers. 

You keep looking in the same places. 

You keep using the same process. 

You keep complaining. 

You are the problem 

You are the boss. 

You change the way you do things. 

You change the way your company does things. 


SLIM PREDICTS 

You will delegate the job. (Read: abrogate responsibility.) 

Your delegate will form a committee and call it a team. 

You will approve the same failed thinking to solve the problem that was used to create the problem. 

You will continue to have problems. 

You will say, “Slim’s advice won’t work, can’t work, doesn’t work, didn’t work.  

You will accept the responsibility instead of taking the blame. 

You will say, “Don’t play the blame game.”  

You will say, “There is no “I” in team.”  

You will say, “Winners never quite and quitters never win.” 

You will hire the same type of people to solve the problem using the same type of thinking but under a different name.  

“Consensus-building is “Group-Think” built by a consultant.” ~ Slim Fairview  

You will begin consensus-building.  

You will continue to have problems.  

Conclusion 

In my PowerPoint Presentation,

“Global Management: A shift in the paradigm of corporate America”   

I showed several organisational charts and listed their flaws. 

I also explained “Group Norms.”  View the presentation.  It is neither that long, nor that complicated.  

Rethink the way you rethink the problem. 

Rethink the way you rethink the solution. 


Slim Fairview’s Empirical Method of Analysis 

Did you try it your way? 

Yes. 

Did things get more high, good, better?  

No.  

Did things get more low, bad, worse?  

Yes.  

Conclusion?  

Stop doing things your way.  


Plan B:  Stop Complaining.  


If you find anything here to be helpful, please don’t hesitate to send me a really tricked-out Mac Book and to tuck a few dollars into the envelope along with the thank you note.  


If not, at least send me a post card.  I don't collect stamps, but the post cards will make for interesting conversation the next time I go to "Seniors". 

Bob Asken
Box 33
Pen Argyl, PA 18072  


Sincerest regards, 

Slim 

slimfairview@yahoo.com 

Copyright © 2014 Robert Asken  

All rights reserved.