Dear All:

In another thread, I noticed we were discussing whether Money is Motivator - especially can we motivate employees.

Here's an article that talks about money from a different perspective. What is money for ? What do you do with money?

......The whole point of money is something different. I learned about that one long-ago day in June in Anchorage, Alaska, of all places.

......I had simply been following the advice handed down by my mother, a woman shaped by the Depression. Her mantras, repeated in word and in deed: live below your means, invest for the future, stay out of debt.

Read on and see what the author says.

Charmed

Nice article - it exactly reflects my own thinking. I live in a very modest house with a small mortgage I'm working hard at paying off specifically because doing so will provide me with additional options. I didn't always follow this philosophy - came to it later in life - but I'm no longer one of those who thinks you might as well buy the latest/greatest car or the biggest house you can possibly own "because you're ALWAYS going to have a mortgage/car payment." Not necessarily, and living modestly with no real debt provides a greater level of FREEDOM than all those possessions. If something unexpected were to happen I'll be okay, which as the article points out is WONDERFUL.

In another thread, I noticed they were discussing whether Money is a Motivator.

What is money for ? What do you do with money?

......The whole point of money is something different. I learned about that one long-ago day in June in Anchorage, Alaska, of all places.

......I had simply been following the advice handed down by my mother, a woman shaped by the Depression. Her mantras, repeated in word and in deed: live below your means, invest for the future, stay out of debt.Cultural Anthropology 101 - Money is part of the barter system. A 'standard' is (was) set (in the 'long ago' days it was basically weight an equation dependent upon the 'item' (beaver skins, or whatever). One uses 'money' to trade for 'goods' one does not produce. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the US today, there exists only speculation (e.g.: went off the 'gold LONG standard').


I wouldn't begin to speculate the pros and cons....

Money is merely the fungible medium of exchange and "storage" for "barter credits" one builds up. By using the medium of exchange, a farrier (horseshoer) doesn't have to wait until a miller needs horsehoes for his animals until the horseshoer can trade for grain or flour. Similarly, a hunter who travels on foot would have no need of horseshoes, so how could the farrier get meat and furs?

As societies become more complex and distances between various producers and consumers becomes greater, the medium of exchange becomes more and more fungible, until in the present day, the physical specie (the actual hard cash) is replaced by ones and zeros in a computer somewhere which acts as the Exchange. This "virtual Exchange" is what allows us to use credit and debit cards and deal with minor adjuncts like Pay Pal and checks. Soon, "smart cards" which carry the data about balance and transactions right on the card in real time.

Dear All:

Natural disasters like the tsunami that we have witnessed , terrorism (9/11 in the US and 3/11 in Spain) and war all teach us how fragile the "economic" system is. Money, if you think about it, is just a means of "bartering". So many cows, or so many gallons of milk equal so many dollars. Or, a car equals so many dollars. If you want a modest house, we can ask someone who wants the 5 cars to let you have their house and take your 5 cars. But this is seldom possible. So we deal with money instead.

When the tsunami hit, many of the Western travelers lost everything - including their money. I remember the story of how one European traveler was learning to "bond" with Indians after the tsunami attack. They helped him not only to recoup from his bodily trauma but also helped him by giving him money! The aid that is pouring in from all over the world is in the form of money, which can be used in many different ways to rebuild many shattered lives, if used wisely.

By the way folks, sorry, I can't help taking this analogy further. So, here it goes.

The science of thermodynamics deals with energy, especially energy in the form of heat. The law of conservation of energy was formulated, in the middle of the 19th century, only after the nature of heat was understood (it was not well understood in Galileo's and Newton's days).

However, to develop this science, we must define what we mean by the idea of temperature. When two bodies, at different temperatures, are brought into intimate contact, something happens. That something is called the flow of energy in the form of heat. An instrument called the "thermometer" senses this flow of heat. When body A (the thermometer) is brought into contact with body B (whose temperature is being measured), the thermometer reading begins to change and then, after some time, the readings stop changing. The final reading is the temperature of body B. Now, we repeat with body A, the thermometer, and body C. If the reading is the same, body B and body C are at the same temperature.

Money plays the same role in economic transactions. When commodity A is compared to the money or dollars (which acts like the thermometer reading), and commodity B is compared to money or dollars, we know which is at a higher temperature (more energy, or money). That's what I have been trying to do in the other thread (New Meaning of Planck's theory, no moved to Coffee Break Chatter forum)

By the way, both Galileo and Newton experimented with different types of thermometers. Newton also formulated what is called the law of cooling which is still being used in forensics to estimate when a person died. (The body cools off at a certain rate, exponentially, which can be used in the investigations.)

Charmed

Content deleted. I don't think we need to go into that subject matter, Mr. Charmed.

Dear All:

The following is the link to a "junk" email is received today. However, it also suggests an interesting view of money, wealth building, or success. Owning a successful franchise, as discussed here, may be one way of making (a lot of) money and achieving all the dreams that wealth brings.

*** Junk Link REMOVED ***

Anyone here who has considered owning a franchise as the method of achieving their financial goals?

Charmed

As a former SEC-registered Investment Adviser and "boutique" investmentment banker, I can say categorically that many, if not most, of the folks who leave the corporate life and plunge their 401k and other savings into franchises and entrepreneurial operations lose the bulk of their invested capital.

The ones who do NOT lose their investments are divided into two remaining groups, one large, one VERY small.

Group 1 is super successful, growing the business and adding additional personnel and/or locations. It is a very small group.

Group 2 has essentially traded one "job" for another "job" and do not make much more on their invested capital than if they had invested in mutual funds. They do not grow their business and rarely are able to delegate the day-to-day operation to others, but must remain on site in "operations" rather than focusing their minds and energies on strategies and plans for growing the business.

I don't think it (mediocrity or failure) has anything to do with the individual business or franchise, because the success stories of the stellar few are real stories. I think it has to do primarily with the mindset of the individuals involved. Most folks are not psychologically prepared to go from being an employee to being a boss overnight. The stress is even worse on folks who come from big corporations with layers of support people taking care of "details." Folks from big corporations are the most likely candidates for the cradle to grave blanket of a big successful franchise (McDonald's comes to mind) where there are still layers of support staff creating advertising, menus, performing bulk purchases, creating procedures, and following up to help underperforming franchisees. Even McDonald's, though, has store closings and frequently buys out dissatisfied franchisees to resell to another aspirant with entrepreneurial spirit.

Lesser franchises don't have the depth of personnel or financing to do that.

For those of you who are of a certain age, what happened to some of those franchises from your youth?
Little Caesar's Pizza
Chicken Delight
Burger Queen
Arthur Treacher's Fish and Chips
Long John Silver
Yankee Doodle

How about sports teams or leagues?

Egghead and other computer-themed outfits?

If you are fed up with the corporate life and aiming to be an entrepreneur (consultant?) or franchisee, please do some extensive research BEFORE you take the plunge. Your spouse and family will thank you for the consideration.

Wes:

Interesting observations. May I add some?

The differences that I notice between the successful business owners I know and myself do indeed stem from a different mindset. First of all, once they have competent people in place, they get out of their way, while making sure their employees have what they need. I envy a couple of people I know who seem to have lots of time to hunt and fish whenever they want to. When I first met one of them a few years ago, i wondered who was minding the store. Surely he would lose it all. The fact is that he was minding the store, from a telephone, and his employees knew where to reach him if he is needed. This allows him to hunt, fish, and look for other opportunities. Sweet.

Another difference to me is their ability to prioritize without even seeming to know that they are doing it.

Having one's own business is a dream many of us share, and there can be great rewards, but, as you noted, Wes, the challenges and risks can be great.

As a former SEC-registered Investment Adviser and "boutique" investmentment banker, I can say categorically that many, if not most, of the folks who leave the corporate life and plunge their 401k and other savings into franchises and entrepreneurial operations lose the bulk of their invested capital.

The ones who do NOT lose their investments are divided into two remaining groups, one large, one VERY small.

Group 1 is super successful, growing the business and adding additional personnel and/or locations. It is a very small group.

Group 2 has essentially traded one "job" for another "job" and do not make much more on their invested capital than if they had invested in mutual funds. They do not grow their business and rarely are able to delegate the day-to-day operation to others, but must remain on site in "operations" rather than focusing their minds and energies on strategies and plans for growing the business.

I don't think it (mediocrity or failure) has anything to do with the individual business or franchise, because the success stories of the stellar few are real stories. I think it has to do primarily with the mindset of the individuals involved. Most folks are not psychologically prepared to go from being an employee to being a boss overnight. The stress is even worse on folks who come from big corporations with layers of support people taking care of "details." Folks from big corporations are the most likely candidates for the cradle to grave blanket of a big successful franchise (McDonald's comes to mind) where there are still layers of support staff creating advertising, menus, performing bulk purchases, creating procedures, and following up to help underperforming franchisees. Even McDonald's, though, has store closings and frequently buys out dissatisfied franchisees to resell to another aspirant with entrepreneurial spirit.

Lesser franchises don't have the depth of personnel or financing to do that.

For those of you who are of a certain age, what happened to some of those franchises from your youth?
Little Caesar's Pizza
Chicken Delight
Burger Queen
Arthur Treacher's Fish and Chips
Long John Silver
Yankee Doodle

How about sports teams or leagues?

Egghead and other computer-themed outfits?

If you are fed up with the corporate life and aiming to be an entrepreneur (consultant?) or franchisee, please do some extensive research BEFORE you take the plunge. Your spouse and family will thank you for the consideration.

Good advice.

In answer to your question, some are still here.

Little Caesars (http://www.littlecaesars.com/)

Arthur Treacher's Fish and Chips (http://www.arthurtreachers.com/)

Long John Silver (http://www.ljsilvers.com/)

Yankee Doodle (http://www.thedoodle.com/)

Dear All:

Is winning everything? If yes, why do we want to win? Lopez, who won everything in sight before turning pro in 1977, said, "I loved winning. It was fun beating all those other little young players."

Again, why does a golfer want to win? The bottom-line still is MONEY not withstanding all the exhilaration.

But now look at all the choices that Michelle Wie, a teenage golfing sensation , the future Tiger Woods of women's golf, is making for herself. As a parent it makes me wonder. What is going on here? Do you wonder as well? Even some professional golfer and a psychologist seems to think Wie may be making the wrong choices. Is it too much, too soon. Will Wie remain or become a sensation that has never ever won a single golf tournament? IMHO, there is much more than golf at stake here.

Charmed

Sorry Charmed, but I disagree....most of us want to win for the sake of WINNING, whether there is a monetary (or other) reward associated with it.

As an example from personal experience:

I am a karateka (Japanese Goju Ryu, 3rd Kyu), and I compete at a lot of tournaments. One of my favorite tournaments is put on monthly by a small club/dojo here in S Ontario. EVERYONE who competes gets a trophy, and the 1st place trophy is worth about $10.00 at the trophy store (less if you buy in bulk, and this dojo DEFINITELY buys in bulk!). My entry fee for the tournament is $20.00, so if I am on a roll, and take 1st place, I am out $10. Usually I place 3rd or 4th, so I am out even more money.

But I keep going back....why? Because what I get when I 'win' is a personal victory, plus the knowledge of my peers that 'I am THAT damm good!' :rolleyes:

And the same translates to work. I am the senior quality engineer at our company, and am paid a fairly decent salary....but I could make more money if I left for a different job; but I like what I do, and I (no BS) LIVE for the times that the customer calls up to tell my boss (or better yet, HIS boss) how pleased they are with the last thing I did for them. That's worth more than money.

I saw Michelle being interviewed on the Golf Channel as she played a practice round in Hawaii with some old golf pro I didn't recognize. Wie handled herself like a poised 30 year old.

She regularly outdrove the pro by 20 or 30 yards. In my opinion, she was a much better and more natural interview than Vijay, Tiger, or Mickelson. She was smart, funny, and honest. The closest thing in the pros might be Garcia. I'd sure rather watch her interview than one with Annika Sorenstam.

I'll sure be watching this week for highlights of her play. You can bet viewership will go up if she makes the cut!

Ron,

it is true that money is not the prime motivator for all, whether in sports, pro sports, or other professional careers. But it IS a prime motivator for a big chunk of the population, both in professional careers AND in pro sports. Just look at some of the many non-winners in the highest profile sports, and the way some of their highly paid players act. They don't play to win, they play for stats and a better contract with whoever is dumb enough to pay it.

Charmed used golf for an example, so I will stick with that. I read a news article on golf tournament purses a couple of years ago, and how these purses compared to salary spreads in higher profile sports like basketball, football, and baseball. The writer talked to golfer Fred Couples, for whom I had a lot of respect until reading that article. He whined about the current state of major tournament purses, saying that they still didn't compare well on individual payout, compared to the high profile sports. He went on to whine about how he found it hard to fathom how the older generation pro golfers (Nicklaus, Palmer, Snead, Hogan, Jones, and further back) ever made it by playing for the relatively small winnings that they received. He went on to whine that he could not fathom having to make a living like that, and didn't think he could be a pro golfer, making only a $100K or so a year, and whined that it is not that great today.

What a moron. For some, it really IS all about the money, sometimes to the extent that they lose any sense of context.

I seem to remember a pro basketball player putting his foot in his mouth in the preseason over money issues. Apparantly, he believed that the multi-million dollar contract proposed to him by his team was an insult, and he stated that it was not enough to even feed his kids (note that this was NOT Shawn Kemp, who might be able to truthfully say this with a straight face, given his list of paternity suits :lol: )

I think it was Sprewell (sp?) who said $17million was an "insult" and he couldn't feed his family on that. Amazing.

Did any of you happen to catch this week's TIME magazine - the issue is on "Happiness," and one article references a study that came out this past year that notes that once you achieve an income of $50,000 any income BEYOND that does not have a correlating increase in happiness level. So money doesn't buy happiness. The article says once you get basic needs met (food, clothing, house) your increase in income does cause an increase in happiness, but only to a point, with that point apparently being $50k.

After $50k any additional happiness quotient is up to you.

That is interesting that $50K is the breakpoint. Where was that derived from?

The average household income where I live is $109,000. Here is the other funny part. I live on a nice channel from the Pacific Ocean and all these people have these enormous boats and beautiful homes. The homes are always dark (nobody home, at work I guess) and the boats hardly ever move (can't afford the fuel?)

Just because you have a waterfront home and a boat are you happy? I'd like to think I would be.

I have a friend that makes around $60,000 a month, but he also works seven days a week, 12 hours a day, is an alcoholic, divorced and his kid is a ruffian to say the least. He is definately not happy, but he has money. Go figure......

I don't recall who did the study and the magazine's at home, but I recommend this issue if you get a chance to pick it up this week - the entire edition is dedicated to this theme of What Makes People Happy, and what motivates them to be happy.

Ron,

it is true that money is not the prime motivator for all, whether in sports, pro sports, or other professional careers. But it IS a prime motivator for a big chunk of the population, both in professional careers AND in pro sports. ....

Charmed used golf for an example, so I will stick with that. I read a news article on golf tournament purses a couple of years ago, and how these purses compared to salary spreads in higher profile sports like basketball, football, and baseball. The writer talked to golfer Fred Couples, for whom I had a lot of respect until reading that article. He whined about the current state of major tournament purses, saying that they still didn't compare well on individual payout, compared to the high profile sports. He went on to whine about how he found it hard to fathom how the older generation pro golfers (Nicklaus, Palmer, Snead, Hogan, Jones, and further back) ever made it by playing for the relatively small winnings that they received. He went on to whine that he could not fathom having to make a living like that, and didn't think he could be a pro golfer, making only a $100K or so a year, and whined that it is not that great today.

What a moron. For some, it really IS all about the money, sometimes to the extent that they lose any sense of context.



I guess I wonder if that make money a motivator or not. I believe legitimately that some can't 'afford' to be a pro golfer. If they miss cuts week after week, and don't get a part of the purse - well without endorsement contracts, maybe they can't make 'a living.' On the other hand - golfers get paid per performance - unlike 'high profile' sports where they get paid to show-up, fined 10K for behaving like a bad boy and it doesn't phase them. Maybe Freddy whined when asked about how it compared to other pro sports, which may be a ligitimate whine. (Question - do pro golfers have to find their own transportation, housing to and from tournaments too? Maybe their sponsors pay for that, I really don't know.) The few in the NBA, NFL, MLB that play for the love of the sport - Farve, Jeter, Jordan, Vizquel to name a few would probably play for less. I would say most pro golfers do play for the love of the sport.

For a normal everyday Joe, most have to pay for their own transportation, housing and whatnot. There was a great piece on ESPN a few months back about a guy barely making the cut each week. He was flying coach, staying at the Motel 6, eating at buffets and Waffel Houses. Not too mention having to pay for his caddy. After the fifth tournament, he started hiring caddies in the city he was playing in so he did nto have to pay travel for his brother-in-law. His YTD winnings were $80,000 and his YTD expenses were $73,000. So in essence he only made $7000 that year, but his response was, I am doing what I love. He did not have a big sponsor, he did not have the suits clamoring to throw money at him, he just went out week after week and chased a little white ball around a field.

The second half of the piece was on our beloved Tiger Woods. Nike flies him from tournament to tournament in his own jet. He stays at luxury homes, not usually in a hotel, he is never lacking for a meal and he was the number 1 or number 2 money winner that year. But Tiger's response was I am doing what I love.

They were both happy, one was just a little more comfortable.

Laura,

sorry, I still think he's being a whiner. I think money is at least part of the motivation. That's not a generalization for all participants, but in Fred's case, given his comments and the amount of success and money he's obtained in the sport, I think it's a fair statement for him.

The discrepancy in pro sport payoff is not unique to that world, it can be seen in manufacturing and other views too. Locally, we have (had, anyway) two local plants in a nearby small town. One was a tire manufacturer and the other a chicken processor. They are within two miles of each other. The tire plant had an avg wage of probably $25/hour, while the chicken plant was closer to $12/hr. Hey, if you're a QA inspector at the chicken plant, making $13/hr less that the tire plant QA person, that doesn't seem fair at all! Then you look behind the scenes and see the economic drivers behind the 2 businesses, things like cost of a tire vs cost of 1lb of chicken breast, monthly plant revenues, etc. Then you see there is a reason for the wage discrepancies.

Same thing with pro golf vs pro basketball. Demand is higher for one sport, and the dollars to be made for sponsor companies is much higher. It stands to reason that there will be more money flowing for participants of the higher demand sport then. So I say to Fred, make a choice: start playing hoops or don a set of pads; get out of pro sports all the way and find a manufacturing job that will support you in the way you've become accustomed to; quit whining about golf payoffs, be grateful you can play a game you love and make a great living at it, and be grateful to the sport's pioneers who blazed the trail to your current livelihood.

I echo IEGeek's comments. I have a childhood friend who is a profesional Bass fisherman. We roomed in college together, and we both studied Fisheries Biology (I switched to chem because I knew I couldn't fish for a living :lol: ). He went to school to study this to make himself more educated about the type of living he wanted to make. He LOVED Bass fishing, and wanted to make a living doing it. He fished some tournaments while in college, but went full-time after graduation. It appears to have been quite a trip for him in the last 12 years or so. He's not making millions, but he IS making a decent living doing something he loves to do, fish. He now has sponsors that pay him to fish, or go talk to others about fish. He even gets on ESPN to talk about it occasionally. For quite a few years, he traveled in a chevy suburban and camped in it at tournaments, to save money. He loved it because he gets to do what he loves for a living. Fortunately for him, he grew up and came to age in a time where a seed of interest in this sparked and grew in the US, to the point that several scores of people are now able to make a good living at this. He happens to be one of them. I hope none of them in another 10 or 20 years start griping about Bass tournament payoffs compared to pro football. I'd call them whiners too :mg: .

Fred, love what ya do and don't whine about the cash, it looks like you've done just fine so far :tg: .