Entrepreneurs Northwest

  • rss
  • tweet
  • 27 November 2009 Canadian identity: un-American
    Kevan, Jeremy and Michael ponder the Canadian identity and its historical roots, digging back to the revolutionary war, the war of 1812, confederation all the way to medicare and Afghanistan. Is the Canadian identity nothing more than the never ceasing struggle not to be Americans?
    0 comments | add comment
    more
  • 26 November 2009 Germanic Charms...

    My family and I recently returned from spending three weeks in Germany and Austria, where a number of charms were particularly noteworthy to our North American eyes.


    Bread, beer and sausage are exceptional: both tend to be made from simple ingredients with extraordinary variety and flavour. Beer benefits from the German purity law of 1516, which limits the ingredients to water, hops, barley and yeast. In spite of these limitations, there are hundreds of beers, and the flavours vary considerably, along with the appropriate glass for the consumption of each variety. My personal favourites were the various Weiss / wheat beers. In the summer, a little lemonade can add a refreshing zest to an already exceptional beer, making it into a radler (with Pils) or a russ (with Weiss) depending on which beer you use. The broad variety of alcohol-free beers, admitedly a little counter-culture to fine beer, are thankfully plentiful for those who are driving or cycling after visiting the beer garden.


    Visiting a German bakery is an adventure unto itself. The pretzels and dark, hearty breads are full of flavour, not to mention the rolls made of a variety of grains. Where else can you by bread by the pound? Though Germans do eat white breads, the dark varieties are my favourites, especially the spelt (dinkel) flour rolls!


    Sausage seems to be a European delicacy with each region producing its own varieties. Some sausages, like white sausage (Weisswurst), even have special serving bowls and rules. In Bavaria it should be consumed before noon and with beer; so much for avoiding alcohol in the morning.


    Not to be mixed with an early-morning beer and Weisswurst, the culture of commuting by bicycle is also very refreshing. Not only are bicycle lanes and paths very common and well-maintained, bikes configured for comfort and all-weather commuting, especially the fenders, friction-powered lights and bike racks/baskets. While racing cycling has its following, cycling for daily transportation is very common and comfortable.


    German homes are as utilitarian as their bicycles. Inner doors are made of solid wood and most windows open in two directions: they can be tipped up or opened like a door depending only on the direction in which you turn the handle. Even commercial buildings often have windows that you can open for a breath of fresh air. The German tendency to take fastidious care of their homes is both a blessing and a curse. They are delightful places to live, but difficult to part with when schooling and job changes increase commuting times.


    The public transportation network is also a pleasure to use, whether for long journeys or within large cities. The stations are generally well-kept and trains tend to run on time. Many people live comfortably without driving their cars often or at all.


    Like their homes and train stations, Germans tend to be well-organized and pay close attention to detail and keeping their environment not only clean, but delightfully inviting and attractive.


    Although sales and income taxes tend to be high, property taxes are almost negligible, allowing those who own their homes to stay in them when they retire with limited incomes. This is truly a blessing.

    1 comments | add comment
    more
  • Definitions of Freedom: Europe v. America
    Americans like to believe that their country stands out as particularly free on the world scene. My recent travels around Europe remind me, however, that freedom is an ambiguous term. Americans generally have more freedom to own firearms, go shopping at any hour on any day of the week and create entrepreneurial businesses than Europeans. Europeans, however, enjoy other freedoms and quasi-freedoms.

    Among the most obvious freedoms in Europe are the freedom of movement between countries and the considerably wider access to alcohol than in the United States, both in terms of locations of purchase and drinking age. There are fewer border restrictions travelling between countries in Europe than there are when driving into California from a neighboring state and they don't share the uniquely American folly of allowing citizens to vote before they can drink.

    There are also some ambiguous freedoms. The bans on motor boat use on many European lakes could be considered a freedom from noise and water polution or a reduction of freedom to use public spaces. The lack of restrictions in Europe on taking animals into public places, including restaurants, is arguably an increased freedom in Europe. There seems to be less of an over-active fear of microbes on the continent than in the USA.

    Restrictions, especially those involving employment and taxation, are often more apparent to locals than to visitors. Taxes, while high in both Europe and the United States, are distributed differently. The higher sales tax or VAT here in Europe is offset by considerably reduced property taxes. Whereas even a hermit without income who owns his home outright in the USA would soon lose his home for failure to pay property taxes, a German homeowner of limited means has almost no fear of losing his home for lack of abilty to pay taxes.

    It is difficult to say which continent is the most desireable place to live, especially for retirees who are less affected by employment restrictions in Europe. If anything, the limitations of freedom are becoming more homogenous between Europe and the USA. The European Union is encouraging more commercial competition between hitherto national monopolies, and the United States is adopting more of the nanny state policies so common in Europe.
    2 comments | add comment
    more
  • The (First) Unemployment, Anti-diversity and Outsourcing Encouragement Act of 2009
    While Obama's first law, forbidding wage discrimination, sounds noble at first glance, it is ultimately destined to reduce employment and erode the possibility of merit pay. It effectively pushes businesses toward rigid, union-style pay scales based on easily-measurable differences like seniority at the expense of pay differentials based on intangibles like merit, reliability and market conditions.

    The law forbids companies from having pay disparities based on gender, race, national origin, religion, age and disabilities. The problem lies in that the most noble reasons for pay disparities, market conditions and merit pay, are intangibles that are difficult to measure. This opens up employers to the potential for litigation if they don't follow a rigid pay scale based on seniority and measurable experience like diplomas and licenses.

    It would be folly to argue that there are never injustices in pay structures, but the solution to such injustices is for workers to move on to work for employers who pay them their true value. In my own salary negotiations, I have found that there are few negotiating techniques more effective for a valuable, underpaid employee than seriously threatening to leave the company. Great employees are hard to come by and considerable worth a premium over other employees who may have the same race, education and years experience but not work as effectively.

    Market conditions can also play a considerable role. During the Internet bubble of the late nineties, my company had such a difficult time finding workers that I ended up hiring less qualified workers than myself at higher wages that I was making. I knew, however, that if the wage disparity continued, I could move to another company or request a pay rise. Further, I was well aware that these new, highly paid employees would be the first to be fired when times were hard. Ultimately, my company raised wages of existing "underpaid" employees to curb the tempation to leave the company.

    In bear markets like the current one, with rising unemployment, the expanding pool of skilled, unemployed workers will cause wage levels in many industries to fall. New hires are rationally paid less than existing employees, creating pressure for existing employees to work harder to avoid getting fired. If companies were forced to re-level wages to market conditinos every six months or to hire new workers based on a rigid, out-dated pay scale, they would be unable to effectively adapt to changing labor market conditions. Who would want to work for a company that re-leveled their wages to market conditions every year? Who would want to work for a company that paid mediocre and exceptional workers with the same seniority the same wage?

    Perhaps the most ironic aspect of the new policy is that Obama also actively promotes volunteerism. In other words, he encourages people to work for free. We have a lot of unpaid volunteers at my school, for example, and they are mostly the wives of well-paid husbands who have their children enrolled. This new law makes a dangerous proposition of paying a modest stipend to such volunteers. Unless such volunteers are paid the same wages as other full-time employees performing similar functions, they cannot be offered a cent for fear of litigation under this new law. In other words, Obama would prefer that some people not be paid at all, rather than allow the possibility of them being paid at pay levels agreeable to both parties.

    Most noble reasons for wage disparity are intangibles like work ethic, reliability and market conditions which are difficult to measure. This new law will force companies to try to defend such practices in court. Companies should be fearful of hiring new workers under these conditions and may very rationally consider outsourcing more of their operations to countries where merit pay is still legal. They might also be expected to hire a less measurably diverse work force, as gender, race, national origin, religion, age and disability diversity is now, more than ever, a liability. All hail the first unemployment, anti-diversity and outsourcing encouragement law of the Obama administration.
    1 comments | add comment
    more