Corporations are not “persons”, they are legal entities. That is a fact that anybody with a normal IQ can easily see and understand. Money is not speech. Again, no normal person thinks otherwise.
Unfortunately, activist extremist judges like Samuel Alito and John Roberts, as well as several judges before them have bastardized the legal definitions of these simple concepts almost beyond recognition.
When we grant to corporations human rights, we are in effect providing unequal (more) rights to the owners of the corporation than we grant to non-owners. Each individual person already has his or her own constitutional rights. But if a corporation has "rights" too then the owners of the corporation have their own rights, and also their share of the corporate rights. This is unequal treatment under the law. This is better treatment for rich people than for everyone else.
As to money and speech, I will start by quoting former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens:
“While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. Speech is only one of the activities that are financed by campaign contributions and expenditures. Those financial activities should not receive the same constitutional protection as speech itself. After all, campaign funds were used to finance the Watergate burglaries — actions that clearly were not protected by the First Amendment.” - Justice Stevens before the Senate Rules Committee, April 30, 2014
So while speech is speech, and money might be used to promote speech, money is also a whole host of other things too. The United States Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, not all the activities one can engage in using money.
Please support a Constitutional Amendment to define corporations as legal entities with no innate rights, and distinguish between speech and money. My favorite is MoveToAmend.org
Thursday, December 4, 2014
What's wrong with the way we tax corporations?
Corporate taxes are all based on profits (sales minus expenses). That may make some sense, but the logic has a huge hole in it, and is not how you and I
are taxed personally. It certainly makes no sense for the
tax policies created for domestic manufacturing to apply to things manufactured elsewhere
and of foreign materials.
You and I are taxed first based on our incomes, with certain allowances
based on the number of kids we have, the amount we donate to charity, and the
amount of interest we pay on our mortgage.
(There are other types of tax deductions but not many people get those
as the limits are so high). When we
allow people to get tax deductions like this we are saying that as a society, we
value these things so much that we are willing to make up the difference out of
our own pockets. You pay a higher tax
rate (say, 15% instead of 14%) so that I can get a deduction for my mortgage,
kids, etc., and I do the same for you. You and I also pay sales tax on pretty much
everything we buy. It does not matter
what our income is or what our expenses are, we pay sales tax no matter what.
Corporations pay sales tax too, but then they deduct the cost of the
goods AND the cost of the sales tax they paid from their profits, hugely
reducing their tax burden. And we make
up the difference out of our own pockets.
When it comes to corporate salaries paid to workers we give tax benefits
(allow tax deductions) for the salaries paid out.
By doing this we are saying that we think this function is so valuable
that we are willing to make up the difference out of our own pockets (through
our personal income tax rates). We want to
incent corporations to hire us, and we are willing to give them big tax breaks
to do so. But why should we do that for
salaries paid out to foreign workers? This is the big hole. Why should I pay higher personal taxes so that EMC can pay their workers
in Ireland to build disk drives? And why
should I pay higher personal taxes so that Apple can pay Foxcon to pay their
workers in China?
The whole corporate tax thing is just completely wrong, and that
perpetuates the rich (generalizing here, but those who own corporations or have large stock holdings in them) getting richer while everyone else struggles to keep their
head above water. I hear a lot of griping from politicians in the media that "The United States has the highest corporate tax rates in the world." Notice they never say "effective tax rates". But lets say it really is true and our rates are the highest. So let's cut our DOMESTIC corporate tax rate by 25%, but ELIMINATE corporate tax deductions for all goods, services, and salaries paid to entities outside the US. It is only fair, and would be the patriotic thing to do.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
What's Wrong With Metrics Management?
Metrics can be useful, in fact valuable. They are objective measurements, usually presented as numbers, that tell us something about our process. What we do with this information is where "Metrics Management" gets us into trouble.
Metrics Management, as I understand it, is a management philosophy that says, "We can't manage what we can't measure, but with numbers (metrics) we can manage just about anything." Its central approach is that, with objective measurement of each aspect of our business we can identify those aspects that are less than optimal. We can then improve the sub-optimal parts of the process, and see the results in our measurements and at the bottom line.
Metrics Management proponents will surely quibble with my overly simplified distillation of a significant aspect of management theory. Please feel free to search the Internet, find articles on metrics-based management, and form your own definition. However, no matter what definition of Metrics Management you use, the process breaks down in practice, and the unintended consequences are harmful to the business.
The core problem with "Metrics Management" as used in any complex and sophisticated enterprise, is that the numbers can't possibly tell the whole story. There is more to any business than the sum of the objectively measurable aspects. But metrics based management encourages those who don't intimately understand the business to think that they can manage based on the numbers, and that's exactly what they do. Decisions are made, policies put into place, and large sums of money are spent in pursuit of "the numbers".
It is unfortunate that the numbers are never able to adequately measure all the things we are trying to achieve. The process is too complex, with too many unmeasurable variables. The numbers can't capture the real "value add" that makes the business work, but we must have objective numbers! So we settle for a proxy, a quantifiable substitute, an objectively measurable event that only tells part of the story. Then improving that measurement becomes the new goal. The boss says we have to get our numbers up! You will be held accountable!
And quickly, almost immediately, employees shift their focus from achieving the real goals of the organization to achieving the numbers that they will be evaluated by, the numbers they must be "accountable" to. Imposition of metrics management on creative people is like squeezing a balloon. The people you've hired to add value to your organization are forced to find creative ways to manipulate the measurements, and they do so to the company's detriment. Nobody wants to do it this way, but they are forced to in order to maintain their employment and income. Everyone has to "play the game". The result is improving metrics, but damaged morale, and then the host of bad results that always follow damaged morale.
Every employee, from the most highly educated and experienced to the new hire at minimum wage, quickly becomes unhappy when the criteria by which they are measured do not closely, almost perfectly correspond to the actions they know to be in the best interest of the company. And this is the inevitable result of trying to "measure and incent" the individual tasks performed
in any complex or creative endeavor. The metrics become a stresser instead of a motivator, a counterproductive mandate that violates the employees' values, and impedes them from doing what they know to be the right thing to do.
Why is it so impossible to develop metrics that truly measure each employee's contribution to the corporation? One reason is due to the inherent complexity of most any modern business. But perhaps a more important reason is because it is impossible to "measure" judgment, and initiative, and loyalty, and teamwork objectively. Those attributes must be measured subjectively, which pretty much puts them outside the realm of Metrics Management. Even the lowliest job requires judgment, yet metrics measurements are rigid, with no capability to reward people who go beyond the scope of their metrics.
What message does imposition of metrics based management send to each employee? That they are "just a number". That the corporation doesn't trust them to use judgment or initiative. That teamwork is not really a priority, and only individual contribution (your numbers) matter. That the employer prefers to sacrifice what is right and what is best for what can be objectively measured. The result is that Metrics Management dehumanizes employees and hurts morale, causes increased turnover, and reduces productivity over the long term. If you doubt this conclusion, study what happened at Home Depot under Nardelli.
In the end, metrics are the refuge of those who don't know how to manage. (With appreciation to the source of most of that phrase). Nothing beats respect, teamwork, and a generous spirit. A caring and intelligent management team that fosters empowerment, initiative, and cooperation will always produce the best results.
Metrics Management, as I understand it, is a management philosophy that says, "We can't manage what we can't measure, but with numbers (metrics) we can manage just about anything." Its central approach is that, with objective measurement of each aspect of our business we can identify those aspects that are less than optimal. We can then improve the sub-optimal parts of the process, and see the results in our measurements and at the bottom line.
Metrics Management proponents will surely quibble with my overly simplified distillation of a significant aspect of management theory. Please feel free to search the Internet, find articles on metrics-based management, and form your own definition. However, no matter what definition of Metrics Management you use, the process breaks down in practice, and the unintended consequences are harmful to the business.
The core problem with "Metrics Management" as used in any complex and sophisticated enterprise, is that the numbers can't possibly tell the whole story. There is more to any business than the sum of the objectively measurable aspects. But metrics based management encourages those who don't intimately understand the business to think that they can manage based on the numbers, and that's exactly what they do. Decisions are made, policies put into place, and large sums of money are spent in pursuit of "the numbers".
It is unfortunate that the numbers are never able to adequately measure all the things we are trying to achieve. The process is too complex, with too many unmeasurable variables. The numbers can't capture the real "value add" that makes the business work, but we must have objective numbers! So we settle for a proxy, a quantifiable substitute, an objectively measurable event that only tells part of the story. Then improving that measurement becomes the new goal. The boss says we have to get our numbers up! You will be held accountable!
And quickly, almost immediately, employees shift their focus from achieving the real goals of the organization to achieving the numbers that they will be evaluated by, the numbers they must be "accountable" to. Imposition of metrics management on creative people is like squeezing a balloon. The people you've hired to add value to your organization are forced to find creative ways to manipulate the measurements, and they do so to the company's detriment. Nobody wants to do it this way, but they are forced to in order to maintain their employment and income. Everyone has to "play the game". The result is improving metrics, but damaged morale, and then the host of bad results that always follow damaged morale.
Every employee, from the most highly educated and experienced to the new hire at minimum wage, quickly becomes unhappy when the criteria by which they are measured do not closely, almost perfectly correspond to the actions they know to be in the best interest of the company. And this is the inevitable result of trying to "measure and incent" the individual tasks performed
in any complex or creative endeavor. The metrics become a stresser instead of a motivator, a counterproductive mandate that violates the employees' values, and impedes them from doing what they know to be the right thing to do.
Why is it so impossible to develop metrics that truly measure each employee's contribution to the corporation? One reason is due to the inherent complexity of most any modern business. But perhaps a more important reason is because it is impossible to "measure" judgment, and initiative, and loyalty, and teamwork objectively. Those attributes must be measured subjectively, which pretty much puts them outside the realm of Metrics Management. Even the lowliest job requires judgment, yet metrics measurements are rigid, with no capability to reward people who go beyond the scope of their metrics.
What message does imposition of metrics based management send to each employee? That they are "just a number". That the corporation doesn't trust them to use judgment or initiative. That teamwork is not really a priority, and only individual contribution (your numbers) matter. That the employer prefers to sacrifice what is right and what is best for what can be objectively measured. The result is that Metrics Management dehumanizes employees and hurts morale, causes increased turnover, and reduces productivity over the long term. If you doubt this conclusion, study what happened at Home Depot under Nardelli.
In the end, metrics are the refuge of those who don't know how to manage. (With appreciation to the source of most of that phrase). Nothing beats respect, teamwork, and a generous spirit. A caring and intelligent management team that fosters empowerment, initiative, and cooperation will always produce the best results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)