Some Economist Claim Advertisements have a Bad Effect on the Economy.

It’s impossible to escape advertising. Truck ads on billboards, beer ads on television, pop-up ads for credit cards on the Internet. It’s everywhere. Last year, U.S. companies spent about $144 billion on commercials and other forms of marketing—about 1 percent of the GDP. So what effect do all these ads have on the economy?

Economists have been debating this topic for a century now, and a couple of broad camps have formed. Many argue that ads are ultimately beneficial, giving people more information about products and boosting competition. Others suggest that ads are essentially a psychological ploy, persuading people to buy things they wouldn’t otherwise want or need. And a few economists, notably Arthur Pigou, have argued that there’s too much advertising in the world, with rival companies merely bludgeoning each other to a standstill.

So which view is correct? Over at VoxEU, Ferdinand Rauch of the University of Oxford describes a fascinating natural experiment he studied to shed light on this question. It turns out that many camps are correct. Advertising does appear to make some products cheaper on the whole—presumably because the ads are informative. But for other products like alcohol or restaurants, ads do seem to persuade people to buy more than they otherwise would.

In his recent paper (pdf), Rauch examined Austria, which has eight regions that all once taxed advertising at different rates. Then, in 2000, the central government stepped in to harmonize this tax across the entire country, setting it at a flat 5 percent. That meant the advertising tax went up in some regions and down in others.

This change, Rauch notes, had an immediate and large impact on the amount of advertising in each region. In other words, an ad tax really does discourage ads.

The change in advertising seemed to have a noticeable impact on consumer prices in Austria. In some areas, prices actually went up as the amount of advertising on these products increased. That suggests that the ads were convincing people to buy more of these products than they otherwise would. 

But in other areas, such as food and education, prices went down as more ads appeared. This seems to suggest that ads were giving people better information about products and allowing them to make more discerning choices. (Indeed, Rauch found that the types of ads in industries where prices went down tended to be more informative.) 

Now, obviously in many areas ads are both informative and persuasive, in which case it’s difficult to untangle the effect on prices. But on the whole, Rauch found that advertising tends to lower consumer prices across the board. If Austria’s 5 percent tax on ads were repealed entirely, he estimated, consumer prices would decrease about 0.25 percentage points on average—though it would vary from industry to industry.

This isn’t a totally theoretical argument. Over the years, a few U.S. states have considered taxing ads. The Florida legislature passed such a tax in 1987, though it was repealed six months later after an outcry. In 2006, Pennsylvania mulled a 6 percent sales tax on advertising. And France has occasionally flirted with the idea.

The merits of this idea depend a lot on whether advertising does more harm than good. And, as economist Timothy Taylor sums up, “Advertising may be that rare case where economists are less cynical than the general public.”

Article Source: Washington Post 

Optimistic Report on Economy: Consumer Confidence in November Highest in 4 and a Half Years.

Today readers will be exposed to another one of these boring reports of numbers and percentages on economic improvement. Yet being the optimistic nature of this report; it's worth reading it. The following is today's report from Reuters:

(Reuters) - Consumer confidence rose to a four-and-a-half-year high in November as consumers became more optimistic about the outlook for the economy, according to a private sector report released on Tuesday.

The Conference Board, an industry group, said its index of consumer attitudes rose to 73.7 up from an upwardly revised 73.1 the month before, its highest since February 2008. Economists had expected a reading of 73.0, according to a Reuters poll.

October was originally reported as 72.2.

"Over the past few months, consumers have grown increasingly more upbeat about the current and expected state of the job market, and this turnaround in sentiment is helping to boost confidence," Lynn Franco, director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center, said in a statement.

The expectations index rose to 85.1 from 84.0, while the present situation index edged slightly lower to 56.6 from 56.7.

Consumers' labor market assessment was little changed in November. The "jobs hard to get" index was flat at 38.8 percent, while the "jobs plentiful" rose to 11.2 percent from 10.4 percent.

Article source: reuters.com 

Bored of that Song? New App Keeps Music Fans Listening; Songs Always Different.

Since the advent of digital music we’ve seen a number of artists trying to offer something different to their fans. Last year we saw Bluebrain release The National Mall, a location-aware album that aimed to hand control over to the consumer. In a similar way, UK musician Gwilym Gold’s Tender Metal is a downloadable piece that mutates each time the listener plays it.

The album is being released solely for the iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch to take advantage of software called Bronze, which has been developed by Gold and producer Lexxx. When using the app, the components of the tracks of Tender Metal are seamlessly and subtly reconfigured each time they are played, meaning that each listening experience is different from the last. Users can choose to loop tracks in order to hear it constantly shift, or shake the phone to ‘regenerate’ the piece from its current permutation. The album is available to buy for GBP 8.99 on the App Store.

The innovation allows for endless reinterpretations of the music without it being performed live, ultimately offering a more immersible experience for fans. How else could musicians set themselves apart in the market?

Article source: springwise.com

Study Finds: People Pursuing Childhood Dream Jobs More Likely to Find Pleasure in Job.

For children, it's up there with picking out a dollhouse and stuffed animals -- answering the question, what do you want to be when you grow up? 

Over the course of your life, the answer to 'What is your dream job?' is something that changes as you confront reality, and practicality.

But according to a new study released Thursday by LinkedIn, roughly 1 in 3 adult professionals (30 percent) say that they have their childhood dream jobs or work in related careers. (No specific age range was mentioned by LinkedIn in the survey.) The online professional network surveyed 8,000 adult professionals from across the world for the study. (LinkedIn counts a total of 187 million members, which it says makes it the world's largest professional network.)

"Childhood dream jobs are pure; it's about what we have a natural inclination for," Nicole Williams, LinkedIn's career expert, said in an interview. "The dream jobs we aspire to as children are a window into our passions and talents."

So what were the top dream jobs for today's professionals back when they were kids?

For American men:

1. Professional or Olympic athlete (8.2 percent of survey respondents).
3. Airplane or helicopter pilot (6.8 percent).
3. Scientist (6.8 percent).
4. Lawyer (5.9 percent).
5. Astronaut (5 percent).

For American women:

1. Teacher (11.4 percent).
2 Veterinarian (9 percent).
3. Writer, journalist or novelist (8.1 percent).
4. Doctor, nurse or emergency medical technician (7.1 percent).
5. Singer (7.1 percent).

So how do people define their dream jobs? The vast majority -- 70 percent -- of those surveyed defined the "childhood dream job" as "taking pleasure in your work." Just 6 percent said it meant making a lot of money.

According to Williams, the childhood dream job is an issue many professionals never really let go of, and in fact, try and return to their passion as they advance in their careers. "I've met a lot of people at their 40th birthday and who say, 'I am not doing what I want to do.' "

So what do you do if you want to transition into your dream job? Williams had three tips:

1. Track down someone doing your dream job. Even well into professional life, it's possible to have a "warped perception" of what a childhood dream job is, Williams says. So it's important to find out what living a certain job is really like, to see if you really want to move forward. She said that she recalled one woman who gave up everything to become a baker, but wasn't thrilled when she had to start waking up at 4 a.m.

2. Immerse yourself in the community. Another way to find out if your childhood dream job is really everything you actually dreamed it would be is to gain some direct exposure in the field. Every field has career groups that are joining. They can also help provide a path toward joining a field. "Dip your toe in," Williams says.

3. Figure out the connection to your current job. "Oftentimes, we are attracted to what we are innately capable of, so don't presume the job you currently have isn't connected" to your dream job, Williams says. When people go for their "childhood dream job," they often think they have to make a "clean break," but oftentimes the impulse to "wipe away that old experience" is really not necessary, Williams says. "You don't want to start from scratch."

What was your childhood dream job?

Article Source:  aol.com

How Losers Get Hired in Today's Tough Economy - See the overlooked truth.

There's nothing more frustrating than watching a loser get hired or promoted when there are far better candidates around, not least of all, us. Sadly, that sort of thing happens all the time. And the cost in terms of time, training and organizational effectiveness is higher than most managers realize.

While every manager hires the occasional weak employee, some definitely make a habit of it. On the flip-side, I bet plenty of us have been on the other end of that equation, although it's safe to say that none of us would like to admit it. Still, it is a sobering thought.

In any case, we'd all like to believe that staffing a company unit or group and finding the right job is more of a science than an art. In reality, it's neither. It's actually a complex and subjective process with a lot of variables. It's so error prone, and for so many reasons, that in some ways it's remarkable that the right person ever gets hired at all.

It's a lot like dating, when you think about it. And how often do we get that right? So when it comes to job matchmaking, why are our hit rates so poor? And aside from whining and complaining and beating our heads against the wall, what can we do to improve the situation?

Assuming we're all smart people with our hearts more or less in the right place, understanding the primary reasons why we so often hire the wrong people -- or are the wrong people ourselves -- should go a long way to helping us avoid that fate. Here are my top seven, in no particular order.

We reach for the stars. It's human nature. Poet Robert Browning said, "A man's reach should exceed his grasp," and you know what? He was right. You set your sights too high and go for it. Sometimes it works and you pull off a minor miracle. The rest of the time, you get to lower the bar and do it again -- and again, until you get it right. That's a heavy price to pay, no matter which side of the equation you're on.

Garbage in, garbage out. Hiring managers and recruiters are forever throwing generic or poorly thought-out job specifications together. Why? They don't know what they're doing, don't see it as a priority or any number of reasons. In any case, the result's the same: garbage in, garbage out. Then they wonder why none of their hires work out.

Hiring managers don't know how to interview. Most managers don't have a clue how to interview candidates and choose the right one. They either ask generic softball questions or ridiculously arcane ones that don't do any good. When you combine that with candidates not knowing what they're really cut out for or shooting for the moon, it really is surprising the right person ever gets hired at all.

Everyone's desperate. And everyone's in a rush. "We need someone in here yesterday." "Find someone now before we lose the requisition." And of course people are desperate for work. I can't fault people for needing a job, but I assume every manager has heard the expression, "There's never enough time to do it right, but there's always plenty of time to do it over." Do it right the first time.

Our priorities are screwed up. Most managers simply don't give the hiring and recruiting process the priority it deserves because that's not their primary function. They see it as a burden, a pain in the neck. As a result of that and their all-too-common desperation to get somebody onboard ASAP, they go through the motions and make concessions they shouldn't.

The "Peter principle." News flash: There are an awful lot of incompetent and dysfunctional managers out there. And in accordance with the Peter principle, they tend to hire equally incompetent and dysfunctional employees. After all, fools are easy to fool. And the higher up they are, the more pronounced the ripple effect down through the organization.

Bad recruiting. There are stellar recruiters, terrible recruiters and everything in between. As with all things involving people, the fat part of the bell curve is made up entirely of imperfect human beings. They make mistakes. Some make lots of them. The solution: Vet your recruiters more carefully than you would anyone else for the simple reason that, if you don't, it'll have a ripple effect and you can end up with an entire organization of losers. 

Article Source: MoneyWatch

The Biggest Energy Leak and Draft Causer in Homes - You might have missed this one.

Have you caulked windows and  replaced weather stripping on your doors? Good for you. But if you think you’ve sealed up air leaks, you’re in for a shock. The biggest air leak in your home is right under your nose. Or, underfoot, more accurately.

It’s the hole that a plumber cuts in the subfloor to make room for the drain assembly at the bottom of a bathtub. Because the drain assembly is big, plumbers make way for it by cutting a generous-size hole that gives them some “wiggle room” when connecting plumbing pipes. This big hole often is left open to the space below. 

If you have a first-floor bathroom over a crawl space or unheated basement, you likely have one of these giant energy wasters in your home.

“Having that big hole for the bathtub drain can waste about as much energy as leaving one of your windows open a few inches, all day, every day,” says Allison Bailes III, president of energy consultant firm Energy Vanguard. “The main difference is that you can easily close the window, but most people don’t even know about this other open window.”

And BTW, that hole also is big enough for good-size critters to crawl inside your home!

Plumbers may plug this hole with a wad of loose insulation, but that’s an imperfect solution — fiberglass insulation can sag over time, especially if it gets damp. The preferred method is to insert foam board that’s cut to fit around the pipes, then seal the board in place with spray foam insulation.

You won’t know if you have a problem unless you crawl under your bathroom and take a look at the tub drain assembly from underneath. Patch the hole with pieces of foam board screwed in place, then seal any gaps with spray foam insulation ($8/can).

A plumber will do the job, too, but that’ll set you back $100-$150. Probably worth it when you think about energy savings, comfort, and keeping mice and camel crickets out of your house!

Article Source: houselogic.com

·                                

Missed Deadline Excuses Revamped in the Corporate World

The age-old “my dog ate my homework” excuse may not fly in this paperless startup age, but there are plenty of other excuses you can use when didn’t finish all your work. Especially if you’ve earned your MBA.

There’s an endless number of to-dos at a startup, but I am a big proponent of that elusive work-life balance, AKA sometimes skipping out of the office before 8PM to go get an acupuncture or meet friends for a Grouper.

The key to getting away with not getting everything done is to talk like a businessperson. MBA degrees are optional, but helpful. Pull out those banal MBA one-liners and you can circumnavigate your way through any missed deadline or incomplete spreadsheet. Whether you’re too busy or just a little lazy, here are ten surefire lines that will cover your butt and earn you some corporate cred to boot:

1.       I didn’t have the bandwidth this week

2.       We were trying to boil the ocean

3.       I had to prioritize other deliverables

4.       It wasn’t the right high-level strategy

5.       It fell below the line this week

6.       It’s really a time and distance problem

7.       There were other low-hanging fruit to attend to

8.       It’s just not quite in my wheelhouse

9.       It didn’t make sense to reinvent the wheel

10.   The problem was that we were working in silos

11.   It’s an issue of scalability

OK, that’s eleven. Bonus!

Article Source: Venturebeat.com