There has recently been some mention of the "gig economy" as the next evolution of the economy. The question then becomes: How does a gig worker handle the situation, given that s/he does not have an employer who is legally obliged to pay him/er a monthly salary?
The biggest problem being a gig worker is how to avoid being cheated of payment after doing the work?
I am a gig worker, and have been since 1994. I have been cheated before. As a result, I have given much thought to this problem -- and I have some observations to share.
Do not wait for anyone to form an organisation to fight for gig worker's rights. That is highly unlikely to happen, even though there are ironically organisations that have been formed to fight for migrant workers' rights. Even if someone does form such an organisation, all that means is the gig worker now has a new "boss" to deal with. This is not a solution. Here are some more practical ideas.
One: Undertake work only if there will be progress payments as the work proceeds. The work does not proceed if the progress payment is not made. This way, the risk of non-payment is reduced to only the last installment.
Two: Undertake only one project from any given client at any one time. This reduces the risk of non-payment to only one project. Do not succumb to the temptation to pile up the accruals; you are merely piling up the risk of non-payment.
Three: Insist on a delivery-on-cash (DOC) payment system. Deliver the completed work, or partial work, only upon payment of full or progress payment. Note the sequence: delivery on cash, not cash on delivery. Once you have delivered the work, you lose any leverage over payment. Yes, you can try the Small Claims Court, but are you willing to go to that trouble, or are you more likely to sigh and write off the payment? You know you have the integrity to deliver the work (after all, what else can you do with it?); you do not know that the client has the integrity to pay you.
Four: Do not do work again for a client who delays or omits payment to you for work done. Never be cheated by the same client twice.
Five: Beware if a client gives you increasingly large projects to do. Never interpret this as increasing trust. The client could just be building you up with small payments in order to eventually run off with a large project done but no payment made.
Six: Prefer to work for clients with large reputations to lose. This gives you some assurance of payment. At the same time, it also means they are more likely to get away with non-payment. What can you do against a large corporation? Who would take your word against theirs?
Seven: Harass the cheating client with weekly, then daily, telephone calls until you get paid. Do not target the CEO, you will be filtered out. Target the accounts clerk.
None of these methods will guarantee you payment. The client can easily ignore you and move on to the next gig sucker. These methods will work only if all or most gig workers adopt them -- which is highly unlikely to happen.
It's the prisoner of war situation: Dig the mass grave today for the other prisoners, while knowing full well that some day later it will be your turn to lie in another mass grave. Imagine if no prisoner agrees to dig a mass grave.
The best that a gig worker can do is reduce the risk for him/herself. There is no real solution to the problem. The result of the above methods will mean you will be paid for your work. They will not guarantee you more work (or merely accruals).
Cheers.
Showing posts with label philosophy of business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy of business. Show all posts
Wednesday, 4 January 2017
Monday, 27 June 2011
What is the role of a company board?
Headline: Hard for board to be brake and accelerator
Author: Lawrence Loh
Source: The Straits Times, 18 June 2011
Quote1:
The proposals in the Consultation Paper on revisions to the Code of Corporate Governance … drill down to the very mechanics of corporate supervision. … One issue that bears more discussion is the philosophical one of what the role of a company board is, in the context of corporate governance. …
Comment1:
This sets the context for the ensuing discussion, and pinpoints the matter of interest – the philosophical issue of the appropriate role of a company board. This falls clearly into the area of philosophy known as Business Ethics or Philosophy of Business.
Quote2:
In an entrepreneurial context, the board is often a vanguard, a torchbearer and a scout for the company. … The board assumes a key business function and helps to create value for the company. … But the worry is that boards may be constituted too much for control functions, and too little for value creation. …
Comment2:
This introduces the disjunction (an either-or situation) between a “value creation function” and a “control function” for the company’s board of directors. With reference to Quote1, the philosophical issue is clearly the relation between these two functions.
Quote3:
At its heart, there is an underlying tension in conceptions of the role of a company board. Is it meant as a control function (like a watchdog) or as a value creation function (to drive business)? A watchdog board will provide checks and balances on the management. … But there is a risk that this may impede agility that drives responsiveness and success. …
Comment3:
The disjunction is now clearly stated: Either (control) or (value creation). The stated risk suggests that the disjunction is exclusive (they cannot be both adopted). We now expect to see arguments for and against each disjunct.
Quote4:
No thanks to the recent spate of financial crises, the pendulum may have swung more towards control rather than value creation. Whether this is desirable is debatable. …
Comment4:
The disjunction, and the philosophical issue, is once again stated.
Quote5:
It will be hard to have a two-in-one role. It is like a car. It will be hard for a board to be both a brake and an accelerator at the same time.
Comment5:
The exclusive nature of the disjunction is repeated. It is a case of “either but not both”.
Quote6:
I am not advocating that we disregard the need for codes of governance in their current forms and thus throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Comment6:
The author does not completely reject the control function. Some control (the baby) is still needed. No explicit argument is presented for this. However, we can intuitively see that a company with no control function is untenable.
Quote7:
The more important consideration is to promote a code purposefully without losing sight of the essence of the business corporation. A code should not be so stifling as to kill the goose – the company – that lays the golden eggs.
Comment7:
On the other hand, ignoring the value creation function will result in the collapse of the company, and hence obviate any role for the board. This is an argumentum ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity), leading to the conclusion that the value creation function must also be served. So we need some control (Quote6), and some value creation (Quote7). How much of each?
Quote8:
There may not necessarily be a conflict of interest between the control and value roles of any board in itself.
Comment8:
In Quote3, the author says there is an “underlying tension” between the two roles. In Quote5, he says “it will be hard to have a two-in-one role”. Now we learn that this tension and difficulty is not necessarily so. Now it turns out that the disjunction is inclusive (either and possibly both).
Quote9:
The tradeoff has to be weighed intelligently and justified by its context, for any company to define the posture of the board.
Comment9:
It is possible to have both roles present, but they have a “zero sum” (tradeoff) relation. More of one will mean less of the other. Certainly the optimum must be sought intelligently. I am, however, perplexed by the phrase “justified by its context”. If each company’s optimum (between the board’s control and value roles) is particular to each company, then there is not much that a Code of Corporate Governance can specify.
Quote10:
The best prescription for companies is to do more with less, and create more value with less control.
Comment10:
The author’s philosophical position is now made clear: Boards of directors should play more of a value creation role than a control role. Given Quote9, the specific optimum point for each company is particular to that company. While the philosophical position is now clear, what about the supporting arguments? We have intuited an argument for the control role (Comment6). We have seen an argument for the value role (Comment7). We have not seen any argument supporting the claim that there is a tradeoff between the control and value roles. We have not seen any argument for the value role superceding the control role. The philosophical discussion is incomplete.
END
Author: Lawrence Loh
Source: The Straits Times, 18 June 2011
Quote1:
The proposals in the Consultation Paper on revisions to the Code of Corporate Governance … drill down to the very mechanics of corporate supervision. … One issue that bears more discussion is the philosophical one of what the role of a company board is, in the context of corporate governance. …
Comment1:
This sets the context for the ensuing discussion, and pinpoints the matter of interest – the philosophical issue of the appropriate role of a company board. This falls clearly into the area of philosophy known as Business Ethics or Philosophy of Business.
Quote2:
In an entrepreneurial context, the board is often a vanguard, a torchbearer and a scout for the company. … The board assumes a key business function and helps to create value for the company. … But the worry is that boards may be constituted too much for control functions, and too little for value creation. …
Comment2:
This introduces the disjunction (an either-or situation) between a “value creation function” and a “control function” for the company’s board of directors. With reference to Quote1, the philosophical issue is clearly the relation between these two functions.
Quote3:
At its heart, there is an underlying tension in conceptions of the role of a company board. Is it meant as a control function (like a watchdog) or as a value creation function (to drive business)? A watchdog board will provide checks and balances on the management. … But there is a risk that this may impede agility that drives responsiveness and success. …
Comment3:
The disjunction is now clearly stated: Either (control) or (value creation). The stated risk suggests that the disjunction is exclusive (they cannot be both adopted). We now expect to see arguments for and against each disjunct.
Quote4:
No thanks to the recent spate of financial crises, the pendulum may have swung more towards control rather than value creation. Whether this is desirable is debatable. …
Comment4:
The disjunction, and the philosophical issue, is once again stated.
Quote5:
It will be hard to have a two-in-one role. It is like a car. It will be hard for a board to be both a brake and an accelerator at the same time.
Comment5:
The exclusive nature of the disjunction is repeated. It is a case of “either but not both”.
Quote6:
I am not advocating that we disregard the need for codes of governance in their current forms and thus throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Comment6:
The author does not completely reject the control function. Some control (the baby) is still needed. No explicit argument is presented for this. However, we can intuitively see that a company with no control function is untenable.
Quote7:
The more important consideration is to promote a code purposefully without losing sight of the essence of the business corporation. A code should not be so stifling as to kill the goose – the company – that lays the golden eggs.
Comment7:
On the other hand, ignoring the value creation function will result in the collapse of the company, and hence obviate any role for the board. This is an argumentum ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity), leading to the conclusion that the value creation function must also be served. So we need some control (Quote6), and some value creation (Quote7). How much of each?
Quote8:
There may not necessarily be a conflict of interest between the control and value roles of any board in itself.
Comment8:
In Quote3, the author says there is an “underlying tension” between the two roles. In Quote5, he says “it will be hard to have a two-in-one role”. Now we learn that this tension and difficulty is not necessarily so. Now it turns out that the disjunction is inclusive (either and possibly both).
Quote9:
The tradeoff has to be weighed intelligently and justified by its context, for any company to define the posture of the board.
Comment9:
It is possible to have both roles present, but they have a “zero sum” (tradeoff) relation. More of one will mean less of the other. Certainly the optimum must be sought intelligently. I am, however, perplexed by the phrase “justified by its context”. If each company’s optimum (between the board’s control and value roles) is particular to each company, then there is not much that a Code of Corporate Governance can specify.
Quote10:
The best prescription for companies is to do more with less, and create more value with less control.
Comment10:
The author’s philosophical position is now made clear: Boards of directors should play more of a value creation role than a control role. Given Quote9, the specific optimum point for each company is particular to that company. While the philosophical position is now clear, what about the supporting arguments? We have intuited an argument for the control role (Comment6). We have seen an argument for the value role (Comment7). We have not seen any argument supporting the claim that there is a tradeoff between the control and value roles. We have not seen any argument for the value role superceding the control role. The philosophical discussion is incomplete.
END
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Should laws on Federal Reserve be changed?
US Federal Reserve Ben S Bernanke and others comment on proposed legislation covering the central bank. We analyse the comments.
Headline: Fed fix flawed: Bernanke
Source: Today, 30/11/9
Quote1
WASHINGTON: In a commentary in the Washington Post yesterday, he [chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben S Bernanke] sharply criticised a Senate provision that he said "would strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers" and a House provision to repeal a 30-year-old law "to protect monetary policy from short-term political influence". "A number of the legislative proposals being circulated would significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions," he said. The measures "would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US". ...
Comment1
We here see the start of a teleological (appeal to consequences) argument.
Argument A
If (pass new laws), then the following consequences:
1. strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers
2. un-protect monetary policy from short-term political influence
3. significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions
4. seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US
The unsaid part of the argument is that these consequences are all undesirable, and hence the proposed laws should not be passed. The problem now is that even when these are said, the argument is still incomplete. A complete teleological argument must consider all consequences to all affected parties, and only then should a decision be made, based on the nett benefit or pain caused by the proposed action (in this case passing the new laws).
Quote2
The 55-year-old Fed chairman has presided over the most expansive use of Fed powers since the Great Depression. While he has averted a financial meltdown, lawmakers and voters have voiced concern about taxpayer-sponsored bailouts and proposed the most sweeping dismantling of Fed authority since the creation of the institution in 1913. ...
Comment2
It turns out that the proposed laws are precisely designed to dismantle Fed authority. This being the case, Consequences 1, 2, 3 identified by Bernanke in Quote1 above are precisely the intended consequences. All Bernanke has achieved with his comments is confirm that the proposed laws will achieve their aims. What he needed to do was show that these three consequences are undesirable, and this he has not done. However, Bernanke's alleged Consequence 4 (seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US) is not affected.
Quote3
"Now more than ever, America needs a strong, non-political and independent central bank with the tools to promote financial stability and to help steer our economy to recovery without inflation," he [Bernanke] argued.
Comment3a
Now Bernanke strongly implies that the above Consequences 1, 2, 3 are undesirable. Since "America needs a strong, non-political and independent central bank", we clearly cannot:
1. strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers
2. un-protect monetary policy from short-term political influence
3. significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions.
Comment3b
But this raises a philosophical question: If the central bank is to be "non-political", then to whom is it answerable? Surely a central bank must answer to the government, and a government must, by definition, be political.
Quote4
Senate Banking Committee [sic] Christopher Dodd and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank have, however, criticised the Fed for lax supervision and want to create a single bank regulator -- a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
Comment4
We have a new argument:
Argument B
Premiss1: If (Fed performs lax supervision), then (create new agency)
Premiss2: Fed performs lax supervision
Conclusion: Therefore, create new agency
This is a Modus Ponens (If P then Q, P, hence Q) argument. It is valid. All that remains is to prove the two premisses true. No proof to this effect is offered.
Quote5
As economist Allan Meltzer, a Fed historian and professor at Carnegie Mellon University, said in an interview: "Congress has a lot of public support for an attack on the Fed ... They bailed out everybody in sight."
Comment5
"Public support" boils down to popularity. This is not an issue that should be settled by popularity. Here there should be a consideration of right or wrong, effective or ineffective. Hence, the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum has been committed, and this argument should be rejected.
Quote6
However, Mr James Glassman, senior economist ad JPMorgan Chase noted that while "the political pressure on the Fed is out there", the Fed "has done a very remarkable job managing the financial crisis and the recovery of the financial markets is a testimony to that. Of all the things to 'fix', why would we tamper with the one that actually has worked well?" -- The New York Times, Bloomberg.
Comment6a
"The political pressure on the Fed is out there" again refers to popularity, and is correctly ignored.
Comment6b
Here is the next argument:
Argument C
Premiss1: If (Fed is done a good job), then (no need to change laws)
Premiss2: Fed has done a good job [from Conclusion2]
Conclusion1: Hence, no need to change laws.
Premiss3: If (financial markets recover), then (Fed has done a good job)
Premiss4: Financial markets recover
Conclusion2: Hence, Fed has done a good job [to Premise2]
Both arguments have the Modus Ponens form, and are therefore valid. The premisses seem intuitively to be true. The arguments are sound, and therefore succeed.
Case analysis
Argument A: Consequences 1, 2, 3 rebutted. Consequence 4 stands. But the argument is incomplete, and raises the philosophical question of to whom should a central bank be answerable. In limbo.
Argument B: The argument is valid, but premisses not shown to be true. In limbo.
Quote5 commits the Argumentum ad Populum. Rejected.
Argument C succeeds.
Verdict: No need to change Federal Reserve laws.
END
Headline: Fed fix flawed: Bernanke
Source: Today, 30/11/9
Quote1
WASHINGTON: In a commentary in the Washington Post yesterday, he [chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben S Bernanke] sharply criticised a Senate provision that he said "would strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers" and a House provision to repeal a 30-year-old law "to protect monetary policy from short-term political influence". "A number of the legislative proposals being circulated would significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions," he said. The measures "would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US". ...
Comment1
We here see the start of a teleological (appeal to consequences) argument.
Argument A
If (pass new laws), then the following consequences:
1. strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers
2. un-protect monetary policy from short-term political influence
3. significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions
4. seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US
The unsaid part of the argument is that these consequences are all undesirable, and hence the proposed laws should not be passed. The problem now is that even when these are said, the argument is still incomplete. A complete teleological argument must consider all consequences to all affected parties, and only then should a decision be made, based on the nett benefit or pain caused by the proposed action (in this case passing the new laws).
Quote2
The 55-year-old Fed chairman has presided over the most expansive use of Fed powers since the Great Depression. While he has averted a financial meltdown, lawmakers and voters have voiced concern about taxpayer-sponsored bailouts and proposed the most sweeping dismantling of Fed authority since the creation of the institution in 1913. ...
Comment2
It turns out that the proposed laws are precisely designed to dismantle Fed authority. This being the case, Consequences 1, 2, 3 identified by Bernanke in Quote1 above are precisely the intended consequences. All Bernanke has achieved with his comments is confirm that the proposed laws will achieve their aims. What he needed to do was show that these three consequences are undesirable, and this he has not done. However, Bernanke's alleged Consequence 4 (seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US) is not affected.
Quote3
"Now more than ever, America needs a strong, non-political and independent central bank with the tools to promote financial stability and to help steer our economy to recovery without inflation," he [Bernanke] argued.
Comment3a
Now Bernanke strongly implies that the above Consequences 1, 2, 3 are undesirable. Since "America needs a strong, non-political and independent central bank", we clearly cannot:
1. strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers
2. un-protect monetary policy from short-term political influence
3. significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions.
Comment3b
But this raises a philosophical question: If the central bank is to be "non-political", then to whom is it answerable? Surely a central bank must answer to the government, and a government must, by definition, be political.
Quote4
Senate Banking Committee [sic] Christopher Dodd and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank have, however, criticised the Fed for lax supervision and want to create a single bank regulator -- a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
Comment4
We have a new argument:
Argument B
Premiss1: If (Fed performs lax supervision), then (create new agency)
Premiss2: Fed performs lax supervision
Conclusion: Therefore, create new agency
This is a Modus Ponens (If P then Q, P, hence Q) argument. It is valid. All that remains is to prove the two premisses true. No proof to this effect is offered.
Quote5
As economist Allan Meltzer, a Fed historian and professor at Carnegie Mellon University, said in an interview: "Congress has a lot of public support for an attack on the Fed ... They bailed out everybody in sight."
Comment5
"Public support" boils down to popularity. This is not an issue that should be settled by popularity. Here there should be a consideration of right or wrong, effective or ineffective. Hence, the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum has been committed, and this argument should be rejected.
Quote6
However, Mr James Glassman, senior economist ad JPMorgan Chase noted that while "the political pressure on the Fed is out there", the Fed "has done a very remarkable job managing the financial crisis and the recovery of the financial markets is a testimony to that. Of all the things to 'fix', why would we tamper with the one that actually has worked well?" -- The New York Times, Bloomberg.
Comment6a
"The political pressure on the Fed is out there" again refers to popularity, and is correctly ignored.
Comment6b
Here is the next argument:
Argument C
Premiss1: If (Fed is done a good job), then (no need to change laws)
Premiss2: Fed has done a good job [from Conclusion2]
Conclusion1: Hence, no need to change laws.
Premiss3: If (financial markets recover), then (Fed has done a good job)
Premiss4: Financial markets recover
Conclusion2: Hence, Fed has done a good job [to Premise2]
Both arguments have the Modus Ponens form, and are therefore valid. The premisses seem intuitively to be true. The arguments are sound, and therefore succeed.
Case analysis
Argument A: Consequences 1, 2, 3 rebutted. Consequence 4 stands. But the argument is incomplete, and raises the philosophical question of to whom should a central bank be answerable. In limbo.
Argument B: The argument is valid, but premisses not shown to be true. In limbo.
Quote5 commits the Argumentum ad Populum. Rejected.
Argument C succeeds.
Verdict: No need to change Federal Reserve laws.
END
Friday, 19 June 2009
Is capitalism good?
This is a report of my philosophy cafe session on 17 June 2009. A popular vote decides the Question of the Evening: Is capitalism good?
We define "good" as "that which promotes the general advancement of mankind".
Capitalism is good because it allows the best to prevail, and having the best prevail advances mankind. Capitalism is good also because it enables a country to work (that is, to not fail). Examples are China and Vietnam. This too advances mankind.
Capitalism is not good, because it promotes elitism and segregation, which do not advance mankind. This is just the flip side of allowing the best to prevail -- some must die out. It is not in the interest of capitalism to kill off the common man -- who are needed as the customers of capitalism. However, the worst will be driven out. This is the price of advancement; it does not mean there is a lack of compassion. To cultivate a garden of roses, it is necessary to remove the weeds. We do not lament: "poor weeds".
But what about the example of the US? It is the foremost capitalist country in the world, and it is also the origin of the current global economic trouble. How is that good? Well, this is a small step in the evolution of mankind. Capitalism does not allow stagnation. The capitalist world will move on, and it will advance. It is good.
We still have time. We take on a second question: What is marriage?
[Please see other post.]
We define "good" as "that which promotes the general advancement of mankind".
Capitalism is good because it allows the best to prevail, and having the best prevail advances mankind. Capitalism is good also because it enables a country to work (that is, to not fail). Examples are China and Vietnam. This too advances mankind.
Capitalism is not good, because it promotes elitism and segregation, which do not advance mankind. This is just the flip side of allowing the best to prevail -- some must die out. It is not in the interest of capitalism to kill off the common man -- who are needed as the customers of capitalism. However, the worst will be driven out. This is the price of advancement; it does not mean there is a lack of compassion. To cultivate a garden of roses, it is necessary to remove the weeds. We do not lament: "poor weeds".
But what about the example of the US? It is the foremost capitalist country in the world, and it is also the origin of the current global economic trouble. How is that good? Well, this is a small step in the evolution of mankind. Capitalism does not allow stagnation. The capitalist world will move on, and it will advance. It is good.
We still have time. We take on a second question: What is marriage?
[Please see other post.]
On workers who "job-hop"
One letter writer comments on a news story about workers from China who change jobs. We analyse the comment.
Source: The Straits Times, 18/6/9, p.A25 (letters)
Headline: Why can't they job-hop?
Writer: Stephanie Chok (Ms)
Quote1
I refer to Tuesday's article, "Quit a job, fly home ... then return to a higher paid one", which describes foreign workers from China embroiled in wage disputes as "job-hoppers".
Comment1
This tells us the topic to be discussed: foreign workers from China who are called "job-hoppers". The writer's position is not revealed.
Quote2
First, the article neglects the underlying push factors workers cite when leaving such exploitative jobs. [A list of push factors follows.] ...
Comment2
Many of these workers leave their jobs because of various push factors. What follows from this piece of information? The argument is not completed. We shall not speculate on the intended thrust.
Quote3
Second, glibly describing foreign workers as "job-hoppers" ignores the fact that the work permit system makes this a difficult and expensive task. [A list of difficulties follows.] ...
Comment3
The phrase "glibly describing" suggests that the intended conclusion is that these workers are not "job-hoppers". We are given a second piece of information: the work permit system makes job-hopping difficult. So, here's the argument:
Reason: The work permit system makes job-hopping difficult.
Conclusion: The foreign workers are not job-hoppers.
Does the reason entail the conclusion? The fact that some action is difficult does not entail that no one can do it. There is nothing in the concept "job-hopper" that says it must have been easily achieved. The reason does not entail the conclusion. The argument fails.
Quote4
When white-collar professionals leave one job for another, whether due to better pay, career enhancement opportunities or greater job fulfulment, this is viewed as pragmatic and reasonable. ... Yet when foreign workers on work permits leave jobs with poor working conditions and low pay to seek better opportunities, this is viewed as unreasonable.
Comment4
A contrast is drawn. The argument is not completed. We pend this.
Quote5
Instead of treating workers fairly and paying them better, companies cite cash flow problems and logistics. While such claims may be true, this should not excuse violations of employment law such as withholding pay.
Comment5
This says that "cash flow problems and logistics" should not excuse "withholding pay". There is no supporting argument for this position. It is not connected to anything else in the letter.
Quote6
Moreover, there is a double standard at work here that requires deeper examination.
Comment6
The "double standard" appears to refer to the contrast drawn in Quote4, and to suggest that the same action (leave jobs) should receive the same evaluation (reasonable or unreasonable). The writer says this needs "deeper examination", but does not provide it. We shall attempt this.
The "double standard" charge relies on the principle of justice that says "equals to be treated equally". Let us compare the two groups. While they are equal in (leave job), they are different in other respects.
1. white collar vs blue collar (?)
2. pull factors vs push factors
These differences are clearly seen in Quote4. They have not been ruled out as irrelevant, nor are they intuitively relevant & significant. Hence, no conclusion can be drawn.
Conclusion
The only argument present is seen in Quote3; and that argument fails.
END
Source: The Straits Times, 18/6/9, p.A25 (letters)
Headline: Why can't they job-hop?
Writer: Stephanie Chok (Ms)
Quote1
I refer to Tuesday's article, "Quit a job, fly home ... then return to a higher paid one", which describes foreign workers from China embroiled in wage disputes as "job-hoppers".
Comment1
This tells us the topic to be discussed: foreign workers from China who are called "job-hoppers". The writer's position is not revealed.
Quote2
First, the article neglects the underlying push factors workers cite when leaving such exploitative jobs. [A list of push factors follows.] ...
Comment2
Many of these workers leave their jobs because of various push factors. What follows from this piece of information? The argument is not completed. We shall not speculate on the intended thrust.
Quote3
Second, glibly describing foreign workers as "job-hoppers" ignores the fact that the work permit system makes this a difficult and expensive task. [A list of difficulties follows.] ...
Comment3
The phrase "glibly describing" suggests that the intended conclusion is that these workers are not "job-hoppers". We are given a second piece of information: the work permit system makes job-hopping difficult. So, here's the argument:
Reason: The work permit system makes job-hopping difficult.
Conclusion: The foreign workers are not job-hoppers.
Does the reason entail the conclusion? The fact that some action is difficult does not entail that no one can do it. There is nothing in the concept "job-hopper" that says it must have been easily achieved. The reason does not entail the conclusion. The argument fails.
Quote4
When white-collar professionals leave one job for another, whether due to better pay, career enhancement opportunities or greater job fulfulment, this is viewed as pragmatic and reasonable. ... Yet when foreign workers on work permits leave jobs with poor working conditions and low pay to seek better opportunities, this is viewed as unreasonable.
Comment4
A contrast is drawn. The argument is not completed. We pend this.
Quote5
Instead of treating workers fairly and paying them better, companies cite cash flow problems and logistics. While such claims may be true, this should not excuse violations of employment law such as withholding pay.
Comment5
This says that "cash flow problems and logistics" should not excuse "withholding pay". There is no supporting argument for this position. It is not connected to anything else in the letter.
Quote6
Moreover, there is a double standard at work here that requires deeper examination.
Comment6
The "double standard" appears to refer to the contrast drawn in Quote4, and to suggest that the same action (leave jobs) should receive the same evaluation (reasonable or unreasonable). The writer says this needs "deeper examination", but does not provide it. We shall attempt this.
The "double standard" charge relies on the principle of justice that says "equals to be treated equally". Let us compare the two groups. While they are equal in (leave job), they are different in other respects.
1. white collar vs blue collar (?)
2. pull factors vs push factors
These differences are clearly seen in Quote4. They have not been ruled out as irrelevant, nor are they intuitively relevant & significant. Hence, no conclusion can be drawn.
Conclusion
The only argument present is seen in Quote3; and that argument fails.
END
What rules for MPs and companies?
British MPs are caught in an expenses scandal despite a comprehensive code of ethics. What went wrong? We analyse one commentator's view.
Source: Today, 15/6/9, p.B5
Headline: Avoid the KPI trap
Writer: John Bittleston
Quote1
A 72-page guide tells MPs what they may charge the taxpayer. ... Why, then, are so many British MPs and Ministers having to repay money, with several resigning? ...
Comment1
This poses the question. Now for the answer.
Quote2
Seventy-two pages were ... too many. Any rule book incites us to find a way around those rules we do not like. ...
Comment2
Two answers asserted:
1. Too many rules.
2. People seek loopholes.
Quote3
To make measurement work for us ... requires that we know what measures are relevant. ... A frightening example is of an overseas hospital that met its key performance indicators (KPIs) consistently for several years but ... the hospital's KPIs did not include saving life or making patients tolerably comfortable or clean. ...
Comment3
A third answer is proposed:
3. Irrelevant rules (this is illustrated by an example)
Quote4
As soon as you draw up rules, everyone looks for what is missing as well as what is there. ...
Comment4
An earlier answer if re-asserted: People seek loopholes.
Quote5
Not all rules are bad; many are essential. The highway would become a battlefield if the rules of the road were not strictly observed. But no amount of highway codes can replace careful driving.
Comment5
The example if the highway is cited to show that it is essential to have some rules (but not 72 pages of them). Then it is asserted that nothing can replace "careful driving".
Quote6
No books of rules can substitute for a commonsense view of how we should behave.
Comment6
The analogy is completed: "careful driving" translates into "commonsense view of how we should behave". What is propounded here is a "commonsense ethics".
Quote7
Defining the line too clearly between honoured and broken trust is not the way to go. Let each person find the line for himself or herself, and let the courts decide if someone has stepped over it. Then let the penalty for a Breach of Trust be of such deterrence that we all keep well behind the line.
Comment7
"Defining the line too clearly" refers to "having too many rules". This is not the way to go. "Let each person find the line" refers to having a commonsense ethics. Courts should rule on possible transgressions, and penalties should be severe enough to be deterrents.
Notice that the points about irrelevant rules and highway rules do not figure in this solution. The basis of this solution is the analogy with highway rules. Analogies are the weakest type of argument -- and work only so long as the similarity stands. Does the similarity stand?
I have two further questions:
1. How is the court to rule on transgressions if we are to "let each person find the line"?
2. Once we have a collection of court rulings, do we not have a comprehensive set of rules?
END
Source: Today, 15/6/9, p.B5
Headline: Avoid the KPI trap
Writer: John Bittleston
Quote1
A 72-page guide tells MPs what they may charge the taxpayer. ... Why, then, are so many British MPs and Ministers having to repay money, with several resigning? ...
Comment1
This poses the question. Now for the answer.
Quote2
Seventy-two pages were ... too many. Any rule book incites us to find a way around those rules we do not like. ...
Comment2
Two answers asserted:
1. Too many rules.
2. People seek loopholes.
Quote3
To make measurement work for us ... requires that we know what measures are relevant. ... A frightening example is of an overseas hospital that met its key performance indicators (KPIs) consistently for several years but ... the hospital's KPIs did not include saving life or making patients tolerably comfortable or clean. ...
Comment3
A third answer is proposed:
3. Irrelevant rules (this is illustrated by an example)
Quote4
As soon as you draw up rules, everyone looks for what is missing as well as what is there. ...
Comment4
An earlier answer if re-asserted: People seek loopholes.
Quote5
Not all rules are bad; many are essential. The highway would become a battlefield if the rules of the road were not strictly observed. But no amount of highway codes can replace careful driving.
Comment5
The example if the highway is cited to show that it is essential to have some rules (but not 72 pages of them). Then it is asserted that nothing can replace "careful driving".
Quote6
No books of rules can substitute for a commonsense view of how we should behave.
Comment6
The analogy is completed: "careful driving" translates into "commonsense view of how we should behave". What is propounded here is a "commonsense ethics".
Quote7
Defining the line too clearly between honoured and broken trust is not the way to go. Let each person find the line for himself or herself, and let the courts decide if someone has stepped over it. Then let the penalty for a Breach of Trust be of such deterrence that we all keep well behind the line.
Comment7
"Defining the line too clearly" refers to "having too many rules". This is not the way to go. "Let each person find the line" refers to having a commonsense ethics. Courts should rule on possible transgressions, and penalties should be severe enough to be deterrents.
Notice that the points about irrelevant rules and highway rules do not figure in this solution. The basis of this solution is the analogy with highway rules. Analogies are the weakest type of argument -- and work only so long as the similarity stands. Does the similarity stand?
I have two further questions:
1. How is the court to rule on transgressions if we are to "let each person find the line"?
2. Once we have a collection of court rulings, do we not have a comprehensive set of rules?
END
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Are we recovering?
Source: The Straits Times, 29/5/9, p.B18
Headline: Stability returning to US economy: Obama
Quote
Mr Peter Morici, an economist and professor at the University of Maryland, said the Obama administration was overselling the gains from the stimulus. "My feeling is that it hasn't had much of an impact yet. That doesn't mean it won't, but I don't think it'll be very large." -- Reuters.
Comment
"The past does not guarantee the future" is precisely the weakness of the everyday belief that "the future will be like the past", but this belief is necessary for everyday life. We should be aware of this weakness, and be prepared for change -- but should not commit the fallacy of assuming that change will surely occur.
END
Headline: Stability returning to US economy: Obama
Quote
Mr Peter Morici, an economist and professor at the University of Maryland, said the Obama administration was overselling the gains from the stimulus. "My feeling is that it hasn't had much of an impact yet. That doesn't mean it won't, but I don't think it'll be very large." -- Reuters.
Comment
"The past does not guarantee the future" is precisely the weakness of the everyday belief that "the future will be like the past", but this belief is necessary for everyday life. We should be aware of this weakness, and be prepared for change -- but should not commit the fallacy of assuming that change will surely occur.
END
Thursday, 28 May 2009
What makes a good CEO?
That was the headline of a recent comment piece. But that is not the real thrust of the article. We examine the piece.
Source: Today, 23/5/9, p.28
Headline: What makes a good CEO?
Writer: David Brooks
Quote1
...Steven Kaplan, Mark Klebanov and Morten Sorensen recently completed a study called Which CEO Characteristics and Abilities Matter? ... They found that strong people skills correlate loosely or not at all with being a good CEO. ... What mattered ... were execution and organisational skills. ...
Comment1
Well, that is the finding of one study. But is this the general case? We need corroboration.
Quote2
These results are consistent with a lot of work that's been done over the past few decades. In 2001, Jim Collins published a best-selling study called Good to Great. He found that the best CEOs were not the flamboyant visionaries. They were humble, self-effacing, diligent and resolute souls who found the thing they were really good at and did it over and over again. That same year Murray Barrick, Michael Mount and Timothy Judge surveyed a century's worth of research into business leadership. They too found that extroversion, agreeableness and openness to new experience did not correlate well with CEO success. Instead, what mattered was emotional stability and, most of all, conscientiousness -- which means being dependable, making plans and following through on them. ...
Comment2
We have other studies with similar findings. We are ready to generalise.
Quote3
What these traits do add up to is a certain ideal personality type. The CEOs that are most likely to succeed are humble, diffident, relentless and a bit uni-dimensional. ...
Comment3
This is the generalisation. But what is important for the real argument in this comment piece is what is not well correlated with the successful CEO: strong people skills, flamboyant visionaries, extroversion, agreeableness and openness to new experience.
Quote4
For [this] reason, business and politics do not blend well. Business leaders tend to perform poorly in Washington, while political leaders possess precisely those talents -- charisma, charm, personal skills -- that are of such limited value when it comes to corporate execution. ...
Comment4
Political talents are precisely those that make for less-than-successful CEOs.
Quote5
We now have an administration freely interposing itself in the management culture of industry after industry. ... When Washington is a profit centre, CEOs are forced to adopt the traits of politicians. That is the insidious way that other nations have lost their competitive edge. -- NYT.
Comment5
Finally, we come to the real argument of this comment piece.
Premiss1: If (politicians interpose in management), then (CEOs adopt political traits)
Premiss2: If (CEOs adopt political traits), then (less successful CEOs)
Premiss3: If (less successful CEOs), then (nation loses competitive edge)
Conclusion1: Hence, If (politicians interpose in management), then (nation loses competitive edge) [To Premiss4]
Premiss4: If (politicians interpose in management), then (nation loses competitive edge) [from Conclusion1]
Premiss5: Not-(nation loses competitive edge) [suppressed]
Conclusion2: Hence, Not-(politicians interpose in management) [suppressed]
The real, but unstated, thrust of this comment piece is that politicians should not interpose themselves in industry management.
END
Source: Today, 23/5/9, p.28
Headline: What makes a good CEO?
Writer: David Brooks
Quote1
...Steven Kaplan, Mark Klebanov and Morten Sorensen recently completed a study called Which CEO Characteristics and Abilities Matter? ... They found that strong people skills correlate loosely or not at all with being a good CEO. ... What mattered ... were execution and organisational skills. ...
Comment1
Well, that is the finding of one study. But is this the general case? We need corroboration.
Quote2
These results are consistent with a lot of work that's been done over the past few decades. In 2001, Jim Collins published a best-selling study called Good to Great. He found that the best CEOs were not the flamboyant visionaries. They were humble, self-effacing, diligent and resolute souls who found the thing they were really good at and did it over and over again. That same year Murray Barrick, Michael Mount and Timothy Judge surveyed a century's worth of research into business leadership. They too found that extroversion, agreeableness and openness to new experience did not correlate well with CEO success. Instead, what mattered was emotional stability and, most of all, conscientiousness -- which means being dependable, making plans and following through on them. ...
Comment2
We have other studies with similar findings. We are ready to generalise.
Quote3
What these traits do add up to is a certain ideal personality type. The CEOs that are most likely to succeed are humble, diffident, relentless and a bit uni-dimensional. ...
Comment3
This is the generalisation. But what is important for the real argument in this comment piece is what is not well correlated with the successful CEO: strong people skills, flamboyant visionaries, extroversion, agreeableness and openness to new experience.
Quote4
For [this] reason, business and politics do not blend well. Business leaders tend to perform poorly in Washington, while political leaders possess precisely those talents -- charisma, charm, personal skills -- that are of such limited value when it comes to corporate execution. ...
Comment4
Political talents are precisely those that make for less-than-successful CEOs.
Quote5
We now have an administration freely interposing itself in the management culture of industry after industry. ... When Washington is a profit centre, CEOs are forced to adopt the traits of politicians. That is the insidious way that other nations have lost their competitive edge. -- NYT.
Comment5
Finally, we come to the real argument of this comment piece.
Premiss1: If (politicians interpose in management), then (CEOs adopt political traits)
Premiss2: If (CEOs adopt political traits), then (less successful CEOs)
Premiss3: If (less successful CEOs), then (nation loses competitive edge)
Conclusion1: Hence, If (politicians interpose in management), then (nation loses competitive edge) [To Premiss4]
Premiss4: If (politicians interpose in management), then (nation loses competitive edge) [from Conclusion1]
Premiss5: Not-(nation loses competitive edge) [suppressed]
Conclusion2: Hence, Not-(politicians interpose in management) [suppressed]
The real, but unstated, thrust of this comment piece is that politicians should not interpose themselves in industry management.
END
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Where is the US dollar heading?
The US dollar is currently the world's major reserve currency. Can it hang on to this status? We examine the writer's argument.
Source: The Straits Times, 15/5/9, p.A18
Headline: Losing purchase: Greenback's future
Writer: By Nouriel Roubini
Quote1
Traditionally, empires that hold the global reserve currency are also net foreign creditors and net lenders. The British Empire declined -- and the pound lost its status as the main global reserve currency -- when Britain became a net debtor and a net borrower during World War II. The US is in a similar position today. It is running huge budget and trade deficits. ... The resulting downfall of the dollar may be only a matter of time.
Comment1
Here is the argument:
Reason: Britain net debtor, pound stops as reserve currency. US becoming net debtor.
Conclusion: Hence, US dollar will stop as reserve currency.
This is an argument from similarity, and will hold only up to the point of dissimilarity. There is no indication of dissimilarity. The argument holds.
Quote2
But what could replace it? The British pound, the Japanese yen and the Swiss franc remain minor reserve currencies. Gold is still a barbaric relic whose value rises only when inflation is high.The euro is hobbled by concerns about the long-term viability of the European Monetary Union. That leaves the yuan. ...
Comment2
All alternatives to the yuan are not suited to be a reserve currency -- for vaious reasons. That leaves the yuan. This is a negative argument, that is, by elimination.
Quote3
China is a creditor country with large current account surpluses, a small budget deficit, much lower public debt as a share of gross domestic product than the US, and solid growth. ...
Comment3
China is a creditor country. That follows the argument from similarity in Comment1. The other factors mentioned here are not obviously relevant to the argument. This is a positive argument for the yuan becoming a reserve currency.
Quote4
At the moment, though, the yuan is far from ready to achieve reserve currency status. China would first have to ease restrictions on money entering and leaving the country, make its currency fully convertible for such transactions, continue its domestic financial reforms and make its bond markets more liquid. It would take a long time for the yuan to become a reserve currency. ...
Comment4
There are other necessary conditions to be met before the yuan can be a reserve currency. These necessary conditions are asserted, not argued for. [Meanwhile, the US dollar remains the only major reserve currency.]
Quote5
This decline of the dollar might take more than a decade, but it could happen even sooner if the Americans do not get their financial house in order. The US must rein in spending and borrowing, and pursue growth that is not based on asset and credit bubbles. Americans need to shift their priorities. This will entail investing in their crumbling infrastructure, alternative and renewable resources and productive human capital -- rather than in unnecessary housing and toxic financial innovation. This will be the only wayto slow down the decline of the dollar, and sustain America's influence in global affairs. ... NYT.
Comment5
"Rein in spending and borrowing" seems in line with making US less of a debtor nation, which follows the model in Comment1. All the other measures do not seem to follow this model. No other argument is offered to support them -- they are merely asserted. Thus, it is left to the reader to simply agree or disagree.
END
Source: The Straits Times, 15/5/9, p.A18
Headline: Losing purchase: Greenback's future
Writer: By Nouriel Roubini
Quote1
Traditionally, empires that hold the global reserve currency are also net foreign creditors and net lenders. The British Empire declined -- and the pound lost its status as the main global reserve currency -- when Britain became a net debtor and a net borrower during World War II. The US is in a similar position today. It is running huge budget and trade deficits. ... The resulting downfall of the dollar may be only a matter of time.
Comment1
Here is the argument:
Reason: Britain net debtor, pound stops as reserve currency. US becoming net debtor.
Conclusion: Hence, US dollar will stop as reserve currency.
This is an argument from similarity, and will hold only up to the point of dissimilarity. There is no indication of dissimilarity. The argument holds.
Quote2
But what could replace it? The British pound, the Japanese yen and the Swiss franc remain minor reserve currencies. Gold is still a barbaric relic whose value rises only when inflation is high.The euro is hobbled by concerns about the long-term viability of the European Monetary Union. That leaves the yuan. ...
Comment2
All alternatives to the yuan are not suited to be a reserve currency -- for vaious reasons. That leaves the yuan. This is a negative argument, that is, by elimination.
Quote3
China is a creditor country with large current account surpluses, a small budget deficit, much lower public debt as a share of gross domestic product than the US, and solid growth. ...
Comment3
China is a creditor country. That follows the argument from similarity in Comment1. The other factors mentioned here are not obviously relevant to the argument. This is a positive argument for the yuan becoming a reserve currency.
Quote4
At the moment, though, the yuan is far from ready to achieve reserve currency status. China would first have to ease restrictions on money entering and leaving the country, make its currency fully convertible for such transactions, continue its domestic financial reforms and make its bond markets more liquid. It would take a long time for the yuan to become a reserve currency. ...
Comment4
There are other necessary conditions to be met before the yuan can be a reserve currency. These necessary conditions are asserted, not argued for. [Meanwhile, the US dollar remains the only major reserve currency.]
Quote5
This decline of the dollar might take more than a decade, but it could happen even sooner if the Americans do not get their financial house in order. The US must rein in spending and borrowing, and pursue growth that is not based on asset and credit bubbles. Americans need to shift their priorities. This will entail investing in their crumbling infrastructure, alternative and renewable resources and productive human capital -- rather than in unnecessary housing and toxic financial innovation. This will be the only wayto slow down the decline of the dollar, and sustain America's influence in global affairs. ... NYT.
Comment5
"Rein in spending and borrowing" seems in line with making US less of a debtor nation, which follows the model in Comment1. All the other measures do not seem to follow this model. No other argument is offered to support them -- they are merely asserted. Thus, it is left to the reader to simply agree or disagree.
END
Whence Asian property stocks?
Are Asian property stocks expected to rise or fall? We examine the arguments.
Source: Today, 15/5/9, p.B7
Headline: Amid the signs of recovery ... Is now the time to invest in Asian property stocks?
Writer: By Frederick Lim
Quote1
The 20- to 30-percent rally in Asian property stocks in the past few months is not sustainable, say experts. ...
Comment1
An assertion is made that there has been a rally in Asian property stocks. This is a statement of fact. We take this as true. But experts say this rally is not sustainable. We want to know why.
Quote2
"In the physical property market, values are clearly falling in most, if not all, markets," said Mr Patrick Sumner, head of Property Securities at Henderson Global Investors. ...
Comment2
This is a comment on the values in the physical property market, rather than the values in property stocks. No explicit link between physical property value and property stock value is provided. We shall not speculate as to any such link.
Quote3
According to Henderson, the recent rally in property securities has been driven by positive sentiment in the equity markets. ...
Comment3
This explains the rally in property stocks, but does not address the question of sustainability.
Quote4
Yanlord, a high-end property developer based in China, said certain segments of the Chinese real estate market are showing signs of recovery. "We have seen our transaction volumes increase from about 200 million yuan in November and December last year to 1 billion yuan ($215 million) in March this year," said Ms Michelle Sze, head of Investor Relations at Yanlord. ...
Comment4
The intended argument here is inductive:
Reason: Transaction volumes have risen
Conclusion: Hence, transaction volumes will continue to rise [suppressed]
Again, this relates to the physical property market, not property stocks. Again, we will not speculate as to any link.
Quote5
Mr Justin Chiu, executive director of Hong Kong developer Cheung Kong Holdings, said ... "As real estate fluctuates in tandem with economic cycles, the current downtrend in Asia has opened up opportunities for favourable entry." ...
Comment5
Here's the argument:
Premiss1: If (economy down), then (real estate down)
Premiss2: (economy down)
Conclusion: Hence, (real estate down)
The argument form is the valid Modus Ponens. Premiss2 is a well-known fact. Is Premiss1 true? In any case, it is not clear whether physical property or property stocks are referred to.
Quote6
"Singapore aims to become a global city focusing on wealth management, high-end talent and lifestyle. Does this strategy have legs? I, for one, am very confident," said Mr Olivier Lim, group chief financial officer at CapitaLand.
Comment6
Again, it is not clear whether physical property or property stocks are referred to.
Summary & Conclusion
No clear argument has been offered to support the claim that the rally in Asian property stocks is not sustainable. Even assuming a positive correlation between physical property value and property stock value, Comments 2 and 5 are pessismistic, while Comments 4 and 6 are optimistic. The experts do not agree.
END
Source: Today, 15/5/9, p.B7
Headline: Amid the signs of recovery ... Is now the time to invest in Asian property stocks?
Writer: By Frederick Lim
Quote1
The 20- to 30-percent rally in Asian property stocks in the past few months is not sustainable, say experts. ...
Comment1
An assertion is made that there has been a rally in Asian property stocks. This is a statement of fact. We take this as true. But experts say this rally is not sustainable. We want to know why.
Quote2
"In the physical property market, values are clearly falling in most, if not all, markets," said Mr Patrick Sumner, head of Property Securities at Henderson Global Investors. ...
Comment2
This is a comment on the values in the physical property market, rather than the values in property stocks. No explicit link between physical property value and property stock value is provided. We shall not speculate as to any such link.
Quote3
According to Henderson, the recent rally in property securities has been driven by positive sentiment in the equity markets. ...
Comment3
This explains the rally in property stocks, but does not address the question of sustainability.
Quote4
Yanlord, a high-end property developer based in China, said certain segments of the Chinese real estate market are showing signs of recovery. "We have seen our transaction volumes increase from about 200 million yuan in November and December last year to 1 billion yuan ($215 million) in March this year," said Ms Michelle Sze, head of Investor Relations at Yanlord. ...
Comment4
The intended argument here is inductive:
Reason: Transaction volumes have risen
Conclusion: Hence, transaction volumes will continue to rise [suppressed]
Again, this relates to the physical property market, not property stocks. Again, we will not speculate as to any link.
Quote5
Mr Justin Chiu, executive director of Hong Kong developer Cheung Kong Holdings, said ... "As real estate fluctuates in tandem with economic cycles, the current downtrend in Asia has opened up opportunities for favourable entry." ...
Comment5
Here's the argument:
Premiss1: If (economy down), then (real estate down)
Premiss2: (economy down)
Conclusion: Hence, (real estate down)
The argument form is the valid Modus Ponens. Premiss2 is a well-known fact. Is Premiss1 true? In any case, it is not clear whether physical property or property stocks are referred to.
Quote6
"Singapore aims to become a global city focusing on wealth management, high-end talent and lifestyle. Does this strategy have legs? I, for one, am very confident," said Mr Olivier Lim, group chief financial officer at CapitaLand.
Comment6
Again, it is not clear whether physical property or property stocks are referred to.
Summary & Conclusion
No clear argument has been offered to support the claim that the rally in Asian property stocks is not sustainable. Even assuming a positive correlation between physical property value and property stock value, Comments 2 and 5 are pessismistic, while Comments 4 and 6 are optimistic. The experts do not agree.
END
Friday, 15 May 2009
What should the F&B sector do?
In a downturn, the F&B sector instinctively wants to cut costs. But experts advise against the obvious measures. We examine the arguments.
Source: The Straits Times, 13/5/9, p.B18
Headline: Don't swallow big discounts, F&B sector told
Writer: Linette Lai
Quote1
When a slowdown hits, F&B operators tend to react by trimming staff, reducing the quality of ingredients to save costs, and offering discounts to attract customers. But experts stressed that although these solutions seem to work in the short run, they are detrimental to the business over time. ...
Comment1
The conclusion is that these are the wrong measures to take. But why?
Quote2
"I think that drastic discounts are a vicious circle," said Mr Ang Kiam Meng, president of the Restaurant Association of Singapore. "When you don't have the discount any longer, your business will not be good again. ... If everyone decides to do this, the whole market decides to do this, we will sink deeper and deeper and there will be no turning back." Mr Ang added that he felt retrenchment was a big blow to the workers involved, and decreasing quality would simply affect a firm's reputation. ...
Comment2
The argument is teleological, that is, an appeal to consequences. They are:
1. If (discounts), then (no turning back)
2. If (retrenchment), then (blow to workers)
3. If (cut quality), then (damage reputation)
Unstated, but clearly intended, the three measures also have the benefit of saving costs.
Considering all the consequences, the harms outweigh the benefits. Therefore, the three measures should not be used.
Quote3
Mr Cheong Hai Poh, president of the Food and Beverage Managers' Association, felt that innovation was the key: "The most unique and challenging question ... is, 'How do you innovate?' Innovation will make your company stand out from the rest." Mr Ang felt that it was important to improve the quality of food and service, especially now as "it is an opportunity to increase customer loyalty".
Comment3
Having rejected some measures, we now turn to recommending some other measures. Again, the argument is teleological. Here are the consequences:
4. If (innovate), then (stand out)
5. If (improve quality), then (increase loyalty)
An unstated but clearly possible consequence of these measures is that costs will be incurred. Will the benefits outweigh the harm?
I am pleased to advise readers that the next philosophy cafe session will be held on 20 May at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Admission is free (but personal expenses for food and drink). All are welcome. (For more information on what a philosophy cafe is, please visit my website via the link on the left.)
END
Source: The Straits Times, 13/5/9, p.B18
Headline: Don't swallow big discounts, F&B sector told
Writer: Linette Lai
Quote1
When a slowdown hits, F&B operators tend to react by trimming staff, reducing the quality of ingredients to save costs, and offering discounts to attract customers. But experts stressed that although these solutions seem to work in the short run, they are detrimental to the business over time. ...
Comment1
The conclusion is that these are the wrong measures to take. But why?
Quote2
"I think that drastic discounts are a vicious circle," said Mr Ang Kiam Meng, president of the Restaurant Association of Singapore. "When you don't have the discount any longer, your business will not be good again. ... If everyone decides to do this, the whole market decides to do this, we will sink deeper and deeper and there will be no turning back." Mr Ang added that he felt retrenchment was a big blow to the workers involved, and decreasing quality would simply affect a firm's reputation. ...
Comment2
The argument is teleological, that is, an appeal to consequences. They are:
1. If (discounts), then (no turning back)
2. If (retrenchment), then (blow to workers)
3. If (cut quality), then (damage reputation)
Unstated, but clearly intended, the three measures also have the benefit of saving costs.
Considering all the consequences, the harms outweigh the benefits. Therefore, the three measures should not be used.
Quote3
Mr Cheong Hai Poh, president of the Food and Beverage Managers' Association, felt that innovation was the key: "The most unique and challenging question ... is, 'How do you innovate?' Innovation will make your company stand out from the rest." Mr Ang felt that it was important to improve the quality of food and service, especially now as "it is an opportunity to increase customer loyalty".
Comment3
Having rejected some measures, we now turn to recommending some other measures. Again, the argument is teleological. Here are the consequences:
4. If (innovate), then (stand out)
5. If (improve quality), then (increase loyalty)
An unstated but clearly possible consequence of these measures is that costs will be incurred. Will the benefits outweigh the harm?
I am pleased to advise readers that the next philosophy cafe session will be held on 20 May at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Admission is free (but personal expenses for food and drink). All are welcome. (For more information on what a philosophy cafe is, please visit my website via the link on the left.)
END
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Should big bras cost more?
Marks & Spencer recently changed its pricing policy on big bras. We examine the reasons.
Source: The Straits Times, 9/5/9, p.C25
Headline: Marks & Spencer scraps 'big boobs' bra surcharge after revolt
Quote1
LONDON: Britain's largest clothing retailer, Marks & Spencer (M&S), has backed down on its incendiary policy of charging a two pound (S$4.45) surcharge for bras that are DD or larger. ...
Comment1
This is the decision. Let's look at the reasons.
Quote2
Some 14,000 women had lent their names to a Facebook campaign aimed at eliminating the big boob penalty. ... The group, which grew exponentially in the last few days, had vowed to challenge [CEO] Mr Rose and other M&S executives at the company's annual meeting this summer. ... "They're didn't want a lot of big-breasted women storming their meeting," said Ms [Becky] Mount, 19, [who co-founded the Busts 4 Justice Facebook group].
Comment2
This is a threat of force. We do not accept it when the robber waves his gun at the victim, and it should not be accepted here. This fallacy carries the name Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to the stick).
Quote3
The new policy brings M&S into line with other major retailers in Britain, who decline to pass the higher cost of designing and manufacturing large-size bras on to the consumer.
Comment3
This describes the situation after the M&S decision, and was not offered as a reason. Had it been offered as a reason, the argument would have been:
Reason: Other stores charge the same price for all bras.
Conclusion: Hence, M&S should charge the same price for all bras.
This is an appeal to popular sentiment -- which could be wrong (think slavery in the 18th century). Consider if no shop could offer a discount unless every shop offers a discount. This argument carries the name Argumentum ad Populum (appeal to the gallery), and must be rejected.
Quote4
[Buyer] Ms [Nicky] Clayton said M&S probably ran into trouble because its lingerie price policy differed from the strategy used for other items. ... AP.
Comment4
Here's the argument:
Reason: M&S practises one-price-all-sizes for all other items.
Conclusion: Hence, M&S should practise one-price-all-sizes for its bras.
This is an appeal to consistency -- always a powerful call in logic. Indeed, it fits one definition of justice: that similar things should be treated similarly, and different things should be treated differently. In this case, the similar things are items of clothing, and the similar treatment is one-price-all-sizes.
Source: The Straits Times, 9/5/9, p.C25
Headline: Marks & Spencer scraps 'big boobs' bra surcharge after revolt
Quote1
LONDON: Britain's largest clothing retailer, Marks & Spencer (M&S), has backed down on its incendiary policy of charging a two pound (S$4.45) surcharge for bras that are DD or larger. ...
Comment1
This is the decision. Let's look at the reasons.
Quote2
Some 14,000 women had lent their names to a Facebook campaign aimed at eliminating the big boob penalty. ... The group, which grew exponentially in the last few days, had vowed to challenge [CEO] Mr Rose and other M&S executives at the company's annual meeting this summer. ... "They're didn't want a lot of big-breasted women storming their meeting," said Ms [Becky] Mount, 19, [who co-founded the Busts 4 Justice Facebook group].
Comment2
This is a threat of force. We do not accept it when the robber waves his gun at the victim, and it should not be accepted here. This fallacy carries the name Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to the stick).
Quote3
The new policy brings M&S into line with other major retailers in Britain, who decline to pass the higher cost of designing and manufacturing large-size bras on to the consumer.
Comment3
This describes the situation after the M&S decision, and was not offered as a reason. Had it been offered as a reason, the argument would have been:
Reason: Other stores charge the same price for all bras.
Conclusion: Hence, M&S should charge the same price for all bras.
This is an appeal to popular sentiment -- which could be wrong (think slavery in the 18th century). Consider if no shop could offer a discount unless every shop offers a discount. This argument carries the name Argumentum ad Populum (appeal to the gallery), and must be rejected.
Quote4
[Buyer] Ms [Nicky] Clayton said M&S probably ran into trouble because its lingerie price policy differed from the strategy used for other items. ... AP.
Comment4
Here's the argument:
Reason: M&S practises one-price-all-sizes for all other items.
Conclusion: Hence, M&S should practise one-price-all-sizes for its bras.
This is an appeal to consistency -- always a powerful call in logic. Indeed, it fits one definition of justice: that similar things should be treated similarly, and different things should be treated differently. In this case, the similar things are items of clothing, and the similar treatment is one-price-all-sizes.
Where is the Singapore economy headed?
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently forecast a dire immediate future for the Singapore economy. But others disagree. We analyse the arguments.
Source: The Straits Times, 7/5/9, p.B15
Headline: Singapore economy may shrink 10%: IMF
Writer: By Fiona Chan
Quote1
The IMF has slashed its forecast for Singapore's growth this year, saying the economy could decline 10 percent to end up as the worst performer in Asia. ... These dire forecasts were released in the IMF's latest regional economic outlook, launched yesterday at the MAS Building. ... Singapore saw the biggest downward revision, said IMF representative Joshua Felman: ...
"If you look around the region, what you see is the countries that have been hit hardest in the crisis have two characteristics: They are the most open economies and they are the ones that specialise in manufacturing. ... Singapore fits well under both categories, and that's why we expect that the decline in output this year is really going to be quite sizeable." ...
Comment1
This is an example of J S Mill's Method of Agreement. Several instances of the phenomenon (hard hit economy) are examined for preceding factors. Common factors are identified: (open economy) and (manufacturing). These are claimed to be the causes. Singapore has both factors. Hence, Singapore will have the effect (hard hit economy).
Quote2
Dr Chua Hak Bin of Citigroup, who spoke in a panel discussion at the IMF event, ... noted that Asia's historical experience has shown that recessions tend to be followed by V-shaped recoveries, especially in small open economies such as Hong Kong and Singapore.
Comment2
This is an inductive argument:
Reason: In the past, recessions followed by V recoveries (esp. in small, open economies)
Conclusion: Hence, this recession will be followed by V recovery.
Note that this conclusion does not contradict the conclusion in Comment1. It is logically possible for a hard hit economy to have a V-shaped recovery.
Quote3
Citigroup economist Kit Wei Zheng, who was also at yesterday's launch, said ... "The IMF forecast does not seem to square with the indicators that we are seeing, including the fact that exports are rebounding quite smartly in month-on-month terms."
Comment3
We complete the argument:
Premiss1: Exports rebound month-on-month
Premiss2: If (exports rebound month-on-month), then (not-(hard hit economy)) [suppressed]
Conclusion: Hence, (not-(hard hit economy))
This conclusion does contradict the conclusion in Comment1. The question lies with Premiss2: How much of a rebound is needed to bring about the consequence of (not-(hard hit economy))?
Source: The Straits Times, 7/5/9, p.B15
Headline: Economy's openness 'to ensure quicker rebound'
Writer: By Robin Chan
Quote4
But this openness will mean a quicker rebound when a global recovery kicks in, Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS) deputy managing director Ong Chong Tee told a business seminar yesterday at the Ritz-Carlton Millenia. This openness and trade dependency makes the economy "more susceptible to global headwinds."
Comment4
This returns us to the argument in Comment1. It wants to revise Premiss1 to:
If (open economy), then (greater susceptibility)
This would allow a hard hit economy to have a V-shaped recovery -- provided the rest of the world recovers first.
Source: The Straits Times, 7/5/9, p.B15
Headline: Singapore economy may shrink 10%: IMF
Writer: By Fiona Chan
Quote1
The IMF has slashed its forecast for Singapore's growth this year, saying the economy could decline 10 percent to end up as the worst performer in Asia. ... These dire forecasts were released in the IMF's latest regional economic outlook, launched yesterday at the MAS Building. ... Singapore saw the biggest downward revision, said IMF representative Joshua Felman: ...
"If you look around the region, what you see is the countries that have been hit hardest in the crisis have two characteristics: They are the most open economies and they are the ones that specialise in manufacturing. ... Singapore fits well under both categories, and that's why we expect that the decline in output this year is really going to be quite sizeable." ...
Comment1
This is an example of J S Mill's Method of Agreement. Several instances of the phenomenon (hard hit economy) are examined for preceding factors. Common factors are identified: (open economy) and (manufacturing). These are claimed to be the causes. Singapore has both factors. Hence, Singapore will have the effect (hard hit economy).
Quote2
Dr Chua Hak Bin of Citigroup, who spoke in a panel discussion at the IMF event, ... noted that Asia's historical experience has shown that recessions tend to be followed by V-shaped recoveries, especially in small open economies such as Hong Kong and Singapore.
Comment2
This is an inductive argument:
Reason: In the past, recessions followed by V recoveries (esp. in small, open economies)
Conclusion: Hence, this recession will be followed by V recovery.
Note that this conclusion does not contradict the conclusion in Comment1. It is logically possible for a hard hit economy to have a V-shaped recovery.
Quote3
Citigroup economist Kit Wei Zheng, who was also at yesterday's launch, said ... "The IMF forecast does not seem to square with the indicators that we are seeing, including the fact that exports are rebounding quite smartly in month-on-month terms."
Comment3
We complete the argument:
Premiss1: Exports rebound month-on-month
Premiss2: If (exports rebound month-on-month), then (not-(hard hit economy)) [suppressed]
Conclusion: Hence, (not-(hard hit economy))
This conclusion does contradict the conclusion in Comment1. The question lies with Premiss2: How much of a rebound is needed to bring about the consequence of (not-(hard hit economy))?
Source: The Straits Times, 7/5/9, p.B15
Headline: Economy's openness 'to ensure quicker rebound'
Writer: By Robin Chan
Quote4
But this openness will mean a quicker rebound when a global recovery kicks in, Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS) deputy managing director Ong Chong Tee told a business seminar yesterday at the Ritz-Carlton Millenia. This openness and trade dependency makes the economy "more susceptible to global headwinds."
Comment4
This returns us to the argument in Comment1. It wants to revise Premiss1 to:
If (open economy), then (greater susceptibility)
This would allow a hard hit economy to have a V-shaped recovery -- provided the rest of the world recovers first.
Are Singapore made goods safe?
My Paper, 6/5/9, p. A6
Singapore voted 2nd-safest manufacturing centre in Asia
By Cheryl Lim
Quote1:
Singapore has been voted the second-safest manufacturing centre in Asia ... in a consumer perception survey by ... The Research Pacific Group. ... Ms Koh Wan Lyn, a senior research analyst at Research Pacific ... said that the poll was "designed to understand consumer attitudes towards a product's country of origin."
Comment1:
This clarification is significant. It is consumer attitudes that are being measured here, and not actual product/service safety.
Quote2:
Explaining Singapore's commendable ranking in the poll, she said: "Singapore has a very clean track record when it comes to its products because of its regulating agencies. They ensure that its manufacturers comply with international standards and adhere to strict safety regulations."
Comment2:
I am sceptical if regulating agencies, international standards and safety regulations are things that the average consumer is familiar with. These causal factors seem more likely to explain actual product/service safety rather than consumers' perceived product/service safety. In short, these do not explain the poll results.
Quote3:
The airline and medical sectors were two categories in which Singapore scored well. Ms Koh attributed this to the "good reputation of Singapore Airlines, and the medical and research infrastructure provided by organisations like A*Star."
Comment3:
Attributing consumers' favourable perceived product/service safety to "good reputation" is akin to saying "He is fat because he is overweight" -- it's just saying the same thing in different words. As for "medical and research infrastructure", they too go towards explaining actual product/service safety rather than consumers' favourable perceived product/service safety.
Summary & Conclusion:
The poll shows that consumers regard Singapore as the second-safest manufacturing centre in Asia. This is not the same as saying that Singapore is actually the second-safest manufacturing centre in Asia. We have not been offered any good explanation for the favourable perception.
Singapore voted 2nd-safest manufacturing centre in Asia
By Cheryl Lim
Quote1:
Singapore has been voted the second-safest manufacturing centre in Asia ... in a consumer perception survey by ... The Research Pacific Group. ... Ms Koh Wan Lyn, a senior research analyst at Research Pacific ... said that the poll was "designed to understand consumer attitudes towards a product's country of origin."
Comment1:
This clarification is significant. It is consumer attitudes that are being measured here, and not actual product/service safety.
Quote2:
Explaining Singapore's commendable ranking in the poll, she said: "Singapore has a very clean track record when it comes to its products because of its regulating agencies. They ensure that its manufacturers comply with international standards and adhere to strict safety regulations."
Comment2:
I am sceptical if regulating agencies, international standards and safety regulations are things that the average consumer is familiar with. These causal factors seem more likely to explain actual product/service safety rather than consumers' perceived product/service safety. In short, these do not explain the poll results.
Quote3:
The airline and medical sectors were two categories in which Singapore scored well. Ms Koh attributed this to the "good reputation of Singapore Airlines, and the medical and research infrastructure provided by organisations like A*Star."
Comment3:
Attributing consumers' favourable perceived product/service safety to "good reputation" is akin to saying "He is fat because he is overweight" -- it's just saying the same thing in different words. As for "medical and research infrastructure", they too go towards explaining actual product/service safety rather than consumers' favourable perceived product/service safety.
Summary & Conclusion:
The poll shows that consumers regard Singapore as the second-safest manufacturing centre in Asia. This is not the same as saying that Singapore is actually the second-safest manufacturing centre in Asia. We have not been offered any good explanation for the favourable perception.
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Marketing in a recession
Today newspaper speaks to three marketers about whether and how to market in a recession. The marketers are Professor John Quelch (Harvard Business School), Mr Frank van den Driest and Ms Roxanne Aquino (both EffectBrands). We analyse their comments.
Source: Today, 28/4/9, p.B5
Headline: Don't be penny wise, pound foolish
Writer: Shermaine Wong
Quote1:
It is one of the biggest and one of the worst mistakes companies make during a recession. The blunder in point, according to three experts: Panicking and slashing marketing budgets to cut costs. ...
Comment1:
This sets the scene. We must resist the temptation to discount everything on the basis of "marketers will surely defend their turf". This commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Hominem (Circumstantial), or appealing to the person's circumstances. Instead, we must consider their arguments on their own merits.
Quote2:
Mr van den Driest cautioned: "The returns on marketing spending take time to show. Gaining market share is as big a KPI as generating sales. If companies trim marketing budgets to cut costs, they'll suffer in the long term."
Comment2:
Here is the argument:
Premiss1: Either (spend on marketing) or (cut marketing spend) [suppressed]
Premiss2: If (spend on marketing), then (gain market share)
Premiss3: If (cut marketing spend), then (lose market share) [suppressed]
Conclusion: Hence, (spend on marketing)
This is a teleological (appeal to consequences) argument, where we choose the most beneficial (or least harmful) of available options.
Quote3:
Mr van den Driest said companies should focus on their most important marketing projects instead of funding a bevy of them.
Comment3:
Given that not all projects can be funded (this is self-evident), the most important by definition should be retained. The problem here is that the word "important" is vague. We do not know what makes a project important. Further elaboration is needed.
Quote4:
Ms Aquino added: "Spend smart -- do fewer things well instead of trying to do many things simultaneously." ...
Comment4:
What if the "fewer things" are not the important things?
Quote5:
Mr van den Driest feels the recession might be a "blessing in disguise" as it forces marketers to return to basics to satisfy customers' needs. Mr van den Driest added: "Back to basics means solving customers' problems rather than just talking about your own brand."
Comment5:
Are "return to basics" and "satisfy customers' needs" elaborations of "important" in Quote3? If not, then which should companies focus on? Note that these are all assertions, not supported by any argument. It is up to the reader simply to agree or disagree with the assertions.
Quote6:
While marketers might be tempted to solely use new media like the Internet as it may be cheaper than TV or print, all three experts caution against abandoning traditional media completely. Prof Quelch maintains there needs to be a good mix between traditional and non-traditional forms of advertising.
Comment6:
The word "good" automatically implies adoption. This "true by definition" argument is called a petitio (pronounced "per-ti-shi-o"). It is not informative. Note the observation that using the Internet is cheap.
Quote7:
One advantage of advertising in print that the Internet cannot offer, according to Prof Quelch, is that advertisers can associate their product with the publication's strong brand image. Similarly, TV advertising will continue to appeal to luxury goods retailers, said Mr van den Driest, as the medium can "create that world of sensory emotions".
Comment7:
Again, there is an appeal to consequences:
1. If Internet, cheap.
2. If print, publication image.
3. If TV, emotions.
... and the relative costs.
Quote8:
Ms Aquino said: ... "Marketing is an investment and those who spend smartly with a medium term outlook will reap benefits."
Comment8:
Here is a conditional statement in the vein of the argument in Comment2:
If (spend on marketing), then (medium term benefits)
When combined with that argument, (spend on marketing) becomes clearly the option with the most beneficial consequences -- and hence should be chosen.
Summary & Conclusion:
We have a teleological argument in favour of continued marketing spending (Comments 2, 8), some idea of which projects to undertake (but no supporting argument) (Comments 3, 4, 5), and an idea of the benefits of respective media (Comments 6, 7).
END
Source: Today, 28/4/9, p.B5
Headline: Don't be penny wise, pound foolish
Writer: Shermaine Wong
Quote1:
It is one of the biggest and one of the worst mistakes companies make during a recession. The blunder in point, according to three experts: Panicking and slashing marketing budgets to cut costs. ...
Comment1:
This sets the scene. We must resist the temptation to discount everything on the basis of "marketers will surely defend their turf". This commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Hominem (Circumstantial), or appealing to the person's circumstances. Instead, we must consider their arguments on their own merits.
Quote2:
Mr van den Driest cautioned: "The returns on marketing spending take time to show. Gaining market share is as big a KPI as generating sales. If companies trim marketing budgets to cut costs, they'll suffer in the long term."
Comment2:
Here is the argument:
Premiss1: Either (spend on marketing) or (cut marketing spend) [suppressed]
Premiss2: If (spend on marketing), then (gain market share)
Premiss3: If (cut marketing spend), then (lose market share) [suppressed]
Conclusion: Hence, (spend on marketing)
This is a teleological (appeal to consequences) argument, where we choose the most beneficial (or least harmful) of available options.
Quote3:
Mr van den Driest said companies should focus on their most important marketing projects instead of funding a bevy of them.
Comment3:
Given that not all projects can be funded (this is self-evident), the most important by definition should be retained. The problem here is that the word "important" is vague. We do not know what makes a project important. Further elaboration is needed.
Quote4:
Ms Aquino added: "Spend smart -- do fewer things well instead of trying to do many things simultaneously." ...
Comment4:
What if the "fewer things" are not the important things?
Quote5:
Mr van den Driest feels the recession might be a "blessing in disguise" as it forces marketers to return to basics to satisfy customers' needs. Mr van den Driest added: "Back to basics means solving customers' problems rather than just talking about your own brand."
Comment5:
Are "return to basics" and "satisfy customers' needs" elaborations of "important" in Quote3? If not, then which should companies focus on? Note that these are all assertions, not supported by any argument. It is up to the reader simply to agree or disagree with the assertions.
Quote6:
While marketers might be tempted to solely use new media like the Internet as it may be cheaper than TV or print, all three experts caution against abandoning traditional media completely. Prof Quelch maintains there needs to be a good mix between traditional and non-traditional forms of advertising.
Comment6:
The word "good" automatically implies adoption. This "true by definition" argument is called a petitio (pronounced "per-ti-shi-o"). It is not informative. Note the observation that using the Internet is cheap.
Quote7:
One advantage of advertising in print that the Internet cannot offer, according to Prof Quelch, is that advertisers can associate their product with the publication's strong brand image. Similarly, TV advertising will continue to appeal to luxury goods retailers, said Mr van den Driest, as the medium can "create that world of sensory emotions".
Comment7:
Again, there is an appeal to consequences:
1. If Internet, cheap.
2. If print, publication image.
3. If TV, emotions.
... and the relative costs.
Quote8:
Ms Aquino said: ... "Marketing is an investment and those who spend smartly with a medium term outlook will reap benefits."
Comment8:
Here is a conditional statement in the vein of the argument in Comment2:
If (spend on marketing), then (medium term benefits)
When combined with that argument, (spend on marketing) becomes clearly the option with the most beneficial consequences -- and hence should be chosen.
Summary & Conclusion:
We have a teleological argument in favour of continued marketing spending (Comments 2, 8), some idea of which projects to undertake (but no supporting argument) (Comments 3, 4, 5), and an idea of the benefits of respective media (Comments 6, 7).
END
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Is it time to suck up to the boss?
Source: The Straits Times, 15/4/9, p.A17
Headline: Hard times = time to suck up to boss
Quote1:
NEW YORK: Experts say ingratiating behaviour is bound to be on the rise in the workplace as workers fret about keeping their jobs in tough economic times. ...
Comment1:
The phenomenon is noted: sucking up. One reason is offered: worry about keeping their jobs.
Quote2:
"They really want to make sure people are noticing what they are doing," said Mr Max Caldwell, an expert in workforce effectiveness at Towers Perrin management consultants. ... Said organisational behaviour professor Jennifer Chatman of the University of California at Berkeley: "It's what we do when we feel ourselves vulnerable or susceptible to the decisions of others." ...
Comment2:
These elaborate the same point. All are aimed at explaining the behaviour -- but do not amount to justifying it.
Quote3:
"It can be bad for business, keeping the yea-sayers around," [says Prof Chatman.]
Comment3:
This is one possible harmful consequence of sucking up.
Quote4:
But according to some researchers, sucking up works. Challenging a chief executive less, complimenting him more and doing him a personal favour increased the likelihood of being appointed to a corporate board by 64 percent, a University of Texas study found.
Comment4:
Another consequence is identified: board appointment. In this context, we can probably extend the benefit to cover job protection. Note that the harmful consequence in Comment3 accrues to the business, and that the beneficial consequence here accrues to the individual.
Quote5:
It's nothing to be ashamed of, said Ms Frances Cole Jones, a professional coach and author of How To Wow. ... "In times like these, the smart thing to do is to 'suck up' - or, perhaps, 're-commit," she added. ...
Comment5:
The phrase "nothing to be ashamed of" indicates the first evaluation in this discussion. It is a denial -- not shameful. It denies an objection to sucking up; it does not support sucking up. Note that there is no elaboration of why it is not shameful.
Quote6:
But there are others like Mr bill Hanover, author of No Sucking Up, who rule out ingratiating behaviour altogether. "If you value self-respect, the respect of your peers and leaders, then sucking up or faking your way to a promotion will leave you ashamed and wanting," he wrote. -- Reuters.
Comment6:
Here are more harmful consequences: shame and want. Note that there is no explicit elaboration of why one will feel shame. The mention of respect from self, peers and leaders only hints at a link, but does not make it explicit.
This directly contradicts Quote5's "nothing to be ashamed of". Further argument on both sides is required, but not provided.
Comment7:
Here are the undisputed consequences of sucking up:
1. can be bad for business [harm to business]
2. provides job protection [benefit to workers]
The correct decision hangs on: Whose interest should the worker serve (since it is the worker who has to decide whether to suck up or not)?
END
Headline: Hard times = time to suck up to boss
Quote1:
NEW YORK: Experts say ingratiating behaviour is bound to be on the rise in the workplace as workers fret about keeping their jobs in tough economic times. ...
Comment1:
The phenomenon is noted: sucking up. One reason is offered: worry about keeping their jobs.
Quote2:
"They really want to make sure people are noticing what they are doing," said Mr Max Caldwell, an expert in workforce effectiveness at Towers Perrin management consultants. ... Said organisational behaviour professor Jennifer Chatman of the University of California at Berkeley: "It's what we do when we feel ourselves vulnerable or susceptible to the decisions of others." ...
Comment2:
These elaborate the same point. All are aimed at explaining the behaviour -- but do not amount to justifying it.
Quote3:
"It can be bad for business, keeping the yea-sayers around," [says Prof Chatman.]
Comment3:
This is one possible harmful consequence of sucking up.
Quote4:
But according to some researchers, sucking up works. Challenging a chief executive less, complimenting him more and doing him a personal favour increased the likelihood of being appointed to a corporate board by 64 percent, a University of Texas study found.
Comment4:
Another consequence is identified: board appointment. In this context, we can probably extend the benefit to cover job protection. Note that the harmful consequence in Comment3 accrues to the business, and that the beneficial consequence here accrues to the individual.
Quote5:
It's nothing to be ashamed of, said Ms Frances Cole Jones, a professional coach and author of How To Wow. ... "In times like these, the smart thing to do is to 'suck up' - or, perhaps, 're-commit," she added. ...
Comment5:
The phrase "nothing to be ashamed of" indicates the first evaluation in this discussion. It is a denial -- not shameful. It denies an objection to sucking up; it does not support sucking up. Note that there is no elaboration of why it is not shameful.
Quote6:
But there are others like Mr bill Hanover, author of No Sucking Up, who rule out ingratiating behaviour altogether. "If you value self-respect, the respect of your peers and leaders, then sucking up or faking your way to a promotion will leave you ashamed and wanting," he wrote. -- Reuters.
Comment6:
Here are more harmful consequences: shame and want. Note that there is no explicit elaboration of why one will feel shame. The mention of respect from self, peers and leaders only hints at a link, but does not make it explicit.
This directly contradicts Quote5's "nothing to be ashamed of". Further argument on both sides is required, but not provided.
Comment7:
Here are the undisputed consequences of sucking up:
1. can be bad for business [harm to business]
2. provides job protection [benefit to workers]
The correct decision hangs on: Whose interest should the worker serve (since it is the worker who has to decide whether to suck up or not)?
END
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Bank boss bonuses?
Source: Today, 16/2/9, p.B1
Headline: The big bonus debate
Quote1:
From Britain to the US and France, political leaders are clamping down on the bankers' bonus culture, which has been singled out as a cause of the financial crisis. ... However, taking too tough a line with banks could have unintended consequences for taxpayers, according to academics and insiders, who say the risks include banks losing their best staff and their share prices falling even lower to the dismay of the taxpayer ultimately.
Comment1:
Here is the objectors' argument:
Premiss1: If (cap bonus), then (lose best staff)
Premiss2: If (lose best staff), then (share price fall)
Premiss3: If (share price fall), then (taxpayer dismay)
Premiss4: Reject (taxpayer dismay)
Conclusion: Hence, reject (cap bonus)
This is a Modus Tollens rollback. It is a valid argument structure. The only way this argument can fail is if any premiss is false.
Quote2:
Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd ... dismissed such fears. ... "The current job market should deter employees from leaving, and if they do, there are many qualified replacements."
Comment2:
"The current ... from leaving" rebuts Premiss1, by asserting that a cap is not sufficient to result in "lose best staff". There is another factor at play, namely "current job market". "If they do ... replacements" rebuts Premiss2, by asserting that lost staff will be replaced by qualified people, and hence that share prices will not fall due to reduction in qualified staff. These two rebuttals block the objectors' argument.
Headline: The big bonus debate
Quote1:
From Britain to the US and France, political leaders are clamping down on the bankers' bonus culture, which has been singled out as a cause of the financial crisis. ... However, taking too tough a line with banks could have unintended consequences for taxpayers, according to academics and insiders, who say the risks include banks losing their best staff and their share prices falling even lower to the dismay of the taxpayer ultimately.
Comment1:
Here is the objectors' argument:
Premiss1: If (cap bonus), then (lose best staff)
Premiss2: If (lose best staff), then (share price fall)
Premiss3: If (share price fall), then (taxpayer dismay)
Premiss4: Reject (taxpayer dismay)
Conclusion: Hence, reject (cap bonus)
This is a Modus Tollens rollback. It is a valid argument structure. The only way this argument can fail is if any premiss is false.
Quote2:
Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd ... dismissed such fears. ... "The current job market should deter employees from leaving, and if they do, there are many qualified replacements."
Comment2:
"The current ... from leaving" rebuts Premiss1, by asserting that a cap is not sufficient to result in "lose best staff". There is another factor at play, namely "current job market". "If they do ... replacements" rebuts Premiss2, by asserting that lost staff will be replaced by qualified people, and hence that share prices will not fall due to reduction in qualified staff. These two rebuttals block the objectors' argument.
Property bottoming out in 2010?
Source: My Paper, 10/2/9, p.A8
Headline: Property bottoming out in 2010?
Quote1:
Mr Phil Anderson, who calls himself a renegade economist, ... confidently calls a property market bottom next year. ...
Comment1:
The conclusion is set out: Property bottom in 2010. What is the supporting argument?
Quote2:
Mr Anderson bases his prediction on an 18-year cycle which he says has manifested itself in the US since 1800.
Comment2:
The supporting argument is an 18-year cycle in the US. What is the supporting argument for the 18-year cycle?
Quote3:
Since then, there had been peaks in land sales or real estate speculation in 1818, 1836, 1854, 1888, 1908, 1926 and 1944. The peaks were followed by downturns or depressions, typically lasting four years. World War II disrupted the pattern. But the cycle resumed in 1955. The real estate market in the US again peaked in 1989 and bottomed in 1991. And 18 years later, in 2006-7, it hit another high. According to Mr Anderson, the market is now into the third year of downturn, so by next year it should bottom.
Comment3:
The supporting argument is inductive: a series of peaks at 18-year intervals, followed by four year downturns. An inductive argument says that if the past is X, the future will also be X. But look at the years. The intervals 1854-88 and 1888-1908 were not 18-year intervals. We have no information on the downturns.
Quote4:
The next boom, peaking around 2024, will be huge because hundreds of millions of Chinese will enter the market for the first time, he said.
Comment4:
The inductively observed pattern occurs in the US. No reason is given for extending it to China in 2024, nor is such an extension intuitively true.
Quote5:
Mr Anderson is confident the cycle will repeat itself as long as land is tradeable and in private hands.
Comment5:
"Land is tradeable and in private hands" leads intuitively to market ups and downs; but not to 18-year cycles. That needs additional argument.
Headline: Property bottoming out in 2010?
Quote1:
Mr Phil Anderson, who calls himself a renegade economist, ... confidently calls a property market bottom next year. ...
Comment1:
The conclusion is set out: Property bottom in 2010. What is the supporting argument?
Quote2:
Mr Anderson bases his prediction on an 18-year cycle which he says has manifested itself in the US since 1800.
Comment2:
The supporting argument is an 18-year cycle in the US. What is the supporting argument for the 18-year cycle?
Quote3:
Since then, there had been peaks in land sales or real estate speculation in 1818, 1836, 1854, 1888, 1908, 1926 and 1944. The peaks were followed by downturns or depressions, typically lasting four years. World War II disrupted the pattern. But the cycle resumed in 1955. The real estate market in the US again peaked in 1989 and bottomed in 1991. And 18 years later, in 2006-7, it hit another high. According to Mr Anderson, the market is now into the third year of downturn, so by next year it should bottom.
Comment3:
The supporting argument is inductive: a series of peaks at 18-year intervals, followed by four year downturns. An inductive argument says that if the past is X, the future will also be X. But look at the years. The intervals 1854-88 and 1888-1908 were not 18-year intervals. We have no information on the downturns.
Quote4:
The next boom, peaking around 2024, will be huge because hundreds of millions of Chinese will enter the market for the first time, he said.
Comment4:
The inductively observed pattern occurs in the US. No reason is given for extending it to China in 2024, nor is such an extension intuitively true.
Quote5:
Mr Anderson is confident the cycle will repeat itself as long as land is tradeable and in private hands.
Comment5:
"Land is tradeable and in private hands" leads intuitively to market ups and downs; but not to 18-year cycles. That needs additional argument.
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Japan's biggest scam
Source: The Straits Times, 6/2/9, p.A10
Headline: Man accused of Japan's biggest scam arrested
Quote:
TOKYO: For a man accused of engineering one of Japan's biggest scams, Kazutsugi Nami looked calm and collected when police arrested him yesterday morning. ... Despite being hounded by the media in the past week amid speculation of this impending arrest, ... he appeared on television almost every day, protesting his innocence. ... "It is not a scam because we have a business plan," he said repeatedly.
Comment:
Mr Kazutsugi Nami's argument, when formally stated, says:
Premiss1: If (business plan), then (not scam)
Premiss2: Business plan
Conclusion: Hence, not scam
This argument has the valid Modus Ponens argument form. Premiss1 cannot be accepted as true. Having a business plan is not a sufficient condition for an enterprise to be not a scam. Indeed, the business plan could be precisely to con gullible people into parting with their money. The argument fails.
Headline: Man accused of Japan's biggest scam arrested
Quote:
TOKYO: For a man accused of engineering one of Japan's biggest scams, Kazutsugi Nami looked calm and collected when police arrested him yesterday morning. ... Despite being hounded by the media in the past week amid speculation of this impending arrest, ... he appeared on television almost every day, protesting his innocence. ... "It is not a scam because we have a business plan," he said repeatedly.
Comment:
Mr Kazutsugi Nami's argument, when formally stated, says:
Premiss1: If (business plan), then (not scam)
Premiss2: Business plan
Conclusion: Hence, not scam
This argument has the valid Modus Ponens argument form. Premiss1 cannot be accepted as true. Having a business plan is not a sufficient condition for an enterprise to be not a scam. Indeed, the business plan could be precisely to con gullible people into parting with their money. The argument fails.
Wednesday, 14 January 2009
When to re-assign work or cut pay?
Source: Today, 13/1/9, p.16 (letters)
Headline: Still good at 62
Author: By Rick Lim Say Kiong
Quote1:
Employers should also consider productivity as a factor when it comes to negotiating re-employment terms and conditions, especially in job scope and pay.
Comment1:
This states the writer's position.
Quote2:
Why shouldn't a 62-year-old employee continue in his job with the same pay if he has been and will be productive in his current job?
Comment2:
This is another statement of the same position, as applied to a 62-year-old employee. The statement's being presented as a question is a literary device known as a rhetorical question. There is an inherent risk in using this device: a reader may not recognise that it is intended to be a statement and not a question. It is best not to use rhetorical questions. Just make the statement.
Quote3:
The moment an older worker reaches the age of 62, is he suddenly undependable, weak and inefficient in his work? If not, why is it deemed necessary for him to be allocated to another job scope to suit his "capabilities" or for him to take a pay cut?
Comment3:
Here, we have more than a rhetorical question fronting for a statement; we have two rhetorical questions fronting for an argument:
Premiss1: If and only if (undependable, weak & inefficient), then (change job scope or cut pay)
Premiss2: Not-(undependable, weak & inefficient)[at 62]
Conclusion: Hence, not-(change job scope or cut pay)[at 62]
Premiss1 states a biconditional relation; where both terms are simultaneously true or false. Premiss2 states that the first term (undependable, weak & inefficient) is not true. The conclusion completes the argument by stating that we should not (change job scope or cut pay).
This argument form is valid, meaning that the premisses do entail the conclusion. Premiss2 is intuitively true: in general, one does not suddenly become (undependable, weak & inefficient) upon reaching age 62. That leaves Premiss1. Is Premiss1 true? Is (undependable, weak & inefficient) the only reason for (change job scope or cut pay)?
Quote4:
Many employers are keen to use the statutory retirement age [62] as a reason to cut pay or even to demean employees to the point of resignation.
Comment4:
This says that some employers think (age 62) is another reason for (cut pay). Resignation is a new point, not mentioned in the argument.
Quote5:
But in a market where experienced, dedicated and still-productive workers are difficult to come by, losing a long-serving employee is not of any benefit to the company.
Comment5:
This addresses the new point of "demean employees to the point of resignation", which is a point not mentioned in the argument.
END
Headline: Still good at 62
Author: By Rick Lim Say Kiong
Quote1:
Employers should also consider productivity as a factor when it comes to negotiating re-employment terms and conditions, especially in job scope and pay.
Comment1:
This states the writer's position.
Quote2:
Why shouldn't a 62-year-old employee continue in his job with the same pay if he has been and will be productive in his current job?
Comment2:
This is another statement of the same position, as applied to a 62-year-old employee. The statement's being presented as a question is a literary device known as a rhetorical question. There is an inherent risk in using this device: a reader may not recognise that it is intended to be a statement and not a question. It is best not to use rhetorical questions. Just make the statement.
Quote3:
The moment an older worker reaches the age of 62, is he suddenly undependable, weak and inefficient in his work? If not, why is it deemed necessary for him to be allocated to another job scope to suit his "capabilities" or for him to take a pay cut?
Comment3:
Here, we have more than a rhetorical question fronting for a statement; we have two rhetorical questions fronting for an argument:
Premiss1: If and only if (undependable, weak & inefficient), then (change job scope or cut pay)
Premiss2: Not-(undependable, weak & inefficient)[at 62]
Conclusion: Hence, not-(change job scope or cut pay)[at 62]
Premiss1 states a biconditional relation; where both terms are simultaneously true or false. Premiss2 states that the first term (undependable, weak & inefficient) is not true. The conclusion completes the argument by stating that we should not (change job scope or cut pay).
This argument form is valid, meaning that the premisses do entail the conclusion. Premiss2 is intuitively true: in general, one does not suddenly become (undependable, weak & inefficient) upon reaching age 62. That leaves Premiss1. Is Premiss1 true? Is (undependable, weak & inefficient) the only reason for (change job scope or cut pay)?
Quote4:
Many employers are keen to use the statutory retirement age [62] as a reason to cut pay or even to demean employees to the point of resignation.
Comment4:
This says that some employers think (age 62) is another reason for (cut pay). Resignation is a new point, not mentioned in the argument.
Quote5:
But in a market where experienced, dedicated and still-productive workers are difficult to come by, losing a long-serving employee is not of any benefit to the company.
Comment5:
This addresses the new point of "demean employees to the point of resignation", which is a point not mentioned in the argument.
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)