chris_gerrib: (Default)
I've violated my no-politics-on-LinkedIn rule today to talk about Friday's meeting between Zelensky and Trump. I'm doing so because I think it illustrates the failure mode of a common negotiation tactic in real estate, namely change the deal at closing. Let me illustrate with a less-controversial but real-world example.

At a previous employer, we were buying some specialized equipment - equipment only two companies in the US could provide. They had given us a quote for approximately $116,000. Just before we met with the sales rep to sign the contract, a real estate person told me "watch and learn. I'm going to save the company $16,000."

So the sales rep came in, made his presentation and handed over the contract. Mr. Real Estate said, "this is great. Reduce the price to $100,000 even and I'll sign it right now." The sales rep politely said, "no, I can't do that. The price is the price."

The sales rep did this for two reasons. First, he knew that his sole competitor was, if not higher then his bid, only slightly lower. Second, the $16,000 reduction was more than his profit on the deal and there was no reason for him to buy our business. Spoiler alert: we signed the original contract and paid exactly what it called for, not a penny less.

Thus unto Trump and Zelensky. First, Zelensky knows that whatever deal Trump thinks he has with Putin will become significantly less favorable to the US between now and the deal signing. Second, any deal that doesn't have meaningful security guarantees for Ukraine isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Two morals of this story. First, a negotiation is a two-way street, and not understanding what the other party needs will lead to failure. Second in the immortal words of Kenny Rodgers, you need to "know when to run." Zelensky is apparently familiar with the song.
chris_gerrib: (Default)
There is an area retail business which I shall not name that is being ran into the ground by the owner. It's a shame, really. The business has a good location and an adequate physical plant. (The place could use a new carpet and some paint, but there's nothing structural wrong with it.) There's no immediate competition, and a nice built-in market.

Yet they are failing. In part, this is due to a lack of consistency. They've had a series of managers and employees, resulting in wide swings in product quality and availability. The owner closed a revenue-producing section of the place for no apparent reason. What's worse, he's now kept his current hours but some of those hours have reduced services. Nothing pisses off a customer more than to walk into a place that's open but be told "we don't do X on these days."

As a result, the owner appears to be attempting to strong-arm more money out of existing customers. This attempt failed with a customer of my acquaintance, resulting in further lost business. The spiral continues downward.
chris_gerrib: (Me 2)
A few links:

A) Albert Goering, brother of Luftwaffe commander and heroin addict Hermann Goering was no fan of the Nazis.

B) Nick Manatas is wise on popularity vs. award-winning fiction. The money quote: The most popular books are not the most-loved books. Popular books often just satisfice—they satisfy, and they suffice. For some people they are A, for lots of people just a B-.

C) Kevin O'Leary of TV's "Shark Tank" invests in 27 companies and says the only ones making money have female CEOs.

D) Like most adults, I am hard to buy gifts for. Well, any or all of these would be lovely to get. (hint, Mom!)

E) A picture is worth a thousand words:

chris_gerrib: (Default)
So, I watched number 4,751 of the 6,821 scheduled debates in the Republican Presidential nominee race. This one was focused on foreign policy, and hosted by the People Who Brought You The Apparently Unnecessary War In Iraq (tm). (Full disclosure - at the time, I was for the war in Iraq. I was wrong.)

Now, I'm not voting Republican, and my ranking of the Republican candidates generally follows John Scalzi's* and this debate merely solidified my opinion. For those not clicking through, Scalzi's Top Three are, in order from least to best, Gingrich, Romney and Huntsman.

Although all three of these individuals hold opinions on foreign and domestic policy that I find objectionable, they all three seem willing to take into account objective reality**. The objective reality that Gingrich recognized was that we simply can't deport 11 million people without the kind of police state that you'd see in the old Soviet Union. Ain't gonna happen.

More to the point, we probably don't want that to happen. Do we really want to deport somebody who was brought here as a child? Or somebody that's been here productively for years? Simply put, we need to 1) look at each case individually in some way that's more efficient than the court system and 2) recognize that a lot of illegal immigrants don't want to stay. For those, a guest worker program would be perfectly acceptable.***

The question will be whether Republican primary voters want reality to get in the way of their ideology. We won't have that answer for several months.




* It's scary how much I end up agreeing with the guy. Just scary.
** In Romney's case, since he holds no ideology at all, he's easily persuadable.
*** Yes, guest workers suppress wages paid to American citizens. Since we've been playing that game since 1607 and the settling of Jamestown, it doesn't look like we're going to stop any time soon.
chris_gerrib: (Default)
A few thoughts on business and immigration:

A) Much is said how America is the most innovative company with the world's best economic environment. We do have a good economic environment, but we rank 23rd in business startups per capita. All the Evil Socialist Fascist Over-there Countries What Talk Funny beat us. The working theory? Health care. In most of the world, one can leave the corporate cube and start a business without worrying about health care costs.

B) Businessweek wonders why Americans won't do dirty jobs. The answer from this grandson of a coal miner is "we will do dirty jobs, you ditz, if you pay us enough!" The use of foreign labor to depress wages goes back to a time before America was independent. What, after all, is a slave or an indentured servant but a special class of cheap labor?

C) A lot of small towns in the Western US are drying up and blowing away. I saw examples of that on my recent trip out west. I also wondered why the town of Dorris, CA, population 939 souls in the middle of nowhere, had a Mexican restaurant. The answer proved to be that Hispanic immigration is saving small western towns.

D) While on the subject of immigration, Russia is seeing emigration at a level not seen since the Bolshevik Revolution. Considering that country's existing demographic crisis, it appears Russia's days as a major power are numbered.

Profile

chris_gerrib: (Default)
chris_gerrib

July 2025

S M T W T F S
  12 3 45
6 78 910 1112
13141516 17 1819
2021222324 2526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 26th, 2025 06:30 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios