This is an interesting writeup by a single mother
Single mom by choice
The last thing I want is people to feel sorry for me. If you can't empathise, don't sympathise. That's akin to putting me down. I am a single mom, raising a lovely eight-year-old and I have no regrets. I don't spend every waking moment hoping to find a substitute dad for my daughter. Parents are special in a child's life and no one can take their place.
I walked out of my marriage over four years ago. No regrets or bitter feelings-just a conviction that I couldn't continue to be 'married' any more. I couldn't continue living in a dead relationship for the 'sake of my child'. Many women do. But marriage is sacrosanct and honesty in heart and mind is my Holy Grail.
What's life like as a single mom? I expect you would want me to say 'challenging'. I would say 'rewarding'. It makes you humble and more than aware of the great responsibility you are wielding. My daughter looks to me as her caretaker and rules-keeper. If she's upset with mommy, she doesn't run to daddy for comfort. She comes back to mommy. To her mommy works hard to take care of her, for the good things around her. She also takes her shopping and on outings.
Sometimes we come up against amazingly archaic rules and systems. Like forms and records which demand a father's name. It's getting better though with official forms increasingly allowing the mother's name for identification instead of the father's. Where we do still need joint signatures, she looks at me with a mischievous grin and says, 'Mommy, you can.'
I am not pushing for single parenthood. Children need the love of both parents. What I am saying is that being a single mom is not the worst thing. Children need love and the anchor of a secure home. If a woman is not happy and content with herself she cannot be a great homemaker.
Does my daughter miss her father? I am sure she does. I do believe no one can take a parent's place in a child's life. But she understands. She understands that somewhere mommy and daddy were never in love-and love is important. She understands they chose to go their separate ways but they are always together in her world. That's enough for now. Someday, when she is old enough, I hope she will understand why I chose the path I did. I cannot live a lie like many others around me. Someday, I am hoping she will smile and say, 'Mommy you can, and you have.'
Friday, May 8, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW:
That there is a problem is not in doubt. Despite years of progress by women in the workforce (they now occupy more than 40% of all managerial positions in the United States), within the C-suite they remain as rare as hens’ teeth. Consider the most highly paid executives of Fortune 500 companies—those with titles such as chairman, president, chief executive officer, and chief operating officer. Of this group, only 6% are women. Most notably, only 2% of the CEOs are women, and only 15% of the seats on the boards of directors are held by women. The situation is not much different in other industrialized countries. In the 50 largest publicly traded corporations in each nation of the European Union, women make up, on average, 11% of the top executives and 4% of the CEOs and heads of boards. Just seven companies, or 1%, of Fortune magazine’s Global 500 have female CEOs. What is to blame for the pronounced lack of women in positions of power and authority?
In 1986 the Wall Street Journal’s Carol Hymowitz and Timothy Schellhardt gave the world an answer: “Even those few women who rose steadily through the ranks eventually crashed into an invisible barrier. The executive suite seemed within their grasp, but they just couldn’t break through the glass ceiling.” The metaphor, driven home by the article’s accompanying illustration, resonated; it captured the frustration of a goal within sight but somehow unattainable. To be sure, there was a time when the barriers were absolute. Even within the career spans of 1980s-era executives, access to top posts had been explicitly denied. Consider comments made by President Richard Nixon, recorded on White House audiotapes and made public through the Freedom of Information Act. When explaining why he would not appoint a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court, Nixon said, “I don’t think a woman should be in any government job whatsoever…mainly because they are erratic. And emotional. Men are erratic and emotional, too, but the point is a woman is more likely to be.” In a culture where such opinions were widely held, women had virtually no chance of attaining influential leadership roles.
Times have changed, however, and the glass ceiling metaphor is now more wrong than right. For one thing, it describes an absolute barrier at a specific high level in organizations. The fact that there have been female chief executives, university presidents, state governors, and presidents of nations gives the lie to that charge. At the same time, the metaphor implies that women and men have equal access to entry- and midlevel positions. They do not. The image of a transparent obstruction also suggests that women are being misled about their opportunities, because the impediment is not easy for them to see from a distance. But some impediments are not subtle. Worst of all, by depicting a single, unvarying obstacle, the glass ceiling fails to incorporate the complexity and variety of challenges that women can face in their leadership journeys. In truth, women are not turned away only as they reach the penultimate stage of a distinguished career. They disappear in various numbers at many points leading up to that stage.
Walls All Around
A better metaphor for what confronts women in their professional endeavors is the labyrinth. It’s an image with a long and varied history in ancient Greece, India, Nepal, native North and South America, medieval Europe, and elsewhere. As a contemporary symbol, it conveys the idea of a complex journey toward a goal worth striving for. Passage through a labyrinth is not simple or direct, but requires persistence, awareness of one’s progress, and a careful analysis of the puzzles that lie ahead. It is this meaning that we intend to convey. For women who aspire to top leadership, routes exist but are full of twists and turns, both unexpected and expected. Because all labyrinths have a viable route to the center, it is understood that goals are attainable. The metaphor acknowledges obstacles but is not ultimately discouraging.
If we can understand the various barriers that make up this labyrinth, and how some women find their way around them, we can work more effectively to improve the situation. What are the obstructions that women run up against? Let’s explore them in turn.
Vestiges of prejudice.
It is a well-established fact that men as a group still have the benefit of higher wages and faster promotions. In the United States in 2005, for example, women employed full-time earned 81 cents for every dollar that men earned. Is this true because of discrimination or simply because, with fewer family demands placed on them and longer careers on average, men are able to gain superior qualifications? Literally hundreds of correlational studies by economists and sociologists have attempted to find the answer.
Copyright © 2007 Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. All rights reserved
That there is a problem is not in doubt. Despite years of progress by women in the workforce (they now occupy more than 40% of all managerial positions in the United States), within the C-suite they remain as rare as hens’ teeth. Consider the most highly paid executives of Fortune 500 companies—those with titles such as chairman, president, chief executive officer, and chief operating officer. Of this group, only 6% are women. Most notably, only 2% of the CEOs are women, and only 15% of the seats on the boards of directors are held by women. The situation is not much different in other industrialized countries. In the 50 largest publicly traded corporations in each nation of the European Union, women make up, on average, 11% of the top executives and 4% of the CEOs and heads of boards. Just seven companies, or 1%, of Fortune magazine’s Global 500 have female CEOs. What is to blame for the pronounced lack of women in positions of power and authority?
In 1986 the Wall Street Journal’s Carol Hymowitz and Timothy Schellhardt gave the world an answer: “Even those few women who rose steadily through the ranks eventually crashed into an invisible barrier. The executive suite seemed within their grasp, but they just couldn’t break through the glass ceiling.” The metaphor, driven home by the article’s accompanying illustration, resonated; it captured the frustration of a goal within sight but somehow unattainable. To be sure, there was a time when the barriers were absolute. Even within the career spans of 1980s-era executives, access to top posts had been explicitly denied. Consider comments made by President Richard Nixon, recorded on White House audiotapes and made public through the Freedom of Information Act. When explaining why he would not appoint a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court, Nixon said, “I don’t think a woman should be in any government job whatsoever…mainly because they are erratic. And emotional. Men are erratic and emotional, too, but the point is a woman is more likely to be.” In a culture where such opinions were widely held, women had virtually no chance of attaining influential leadership roles.
Times have changed, however, and the glass ceiling metaphor is now more wrong than right. For one thing, it describes an absolute barrier at a specific high level in organizations. The fact that there have been female chief executives, university presidents, state governors, and presidents of nations gives the lie to that charge. At the same time, the metaphor implies that women and men have equal access to entry- and midlevel positions. They do not. The image of a transparent obstruction also suggests that women are being misled about their opportunities, because the impediment is not easy for them to see from a distance. But some impediments are not subtle. Worst of all, by depicting a single, unvarying obstacle, the glass ceiling fails to incorporate the complexity and variety of challenges that women can face in their leadership journeys. In truth, women are not turned away only as they reach the penultimate stage of a distinguished career. They disappear in various numbers at many points leading up to that stage.
Walls All Around
A better metaphor for what confronts women in their professional endeavors is the labyrinth. It’s an image with a long and varied history in ancient Greece, India, Nepal, native North and South America, medieval Europe, and elsewhere. As a contemporary symbol, it conveys the idea of a complex journey toward a goal worth striving for. Passage through a labyrinth is not simple or direct, but requires persistence, awareness of one’s progress, and a careful analysis of the puzzles that lie ahead. It is this meaning that we intend to convey. For women who aspire to top leadership, routes exist but are full of twists and turns, both unexpected and expected. Because all labyrinths have a viable route to the center, it is understood that goals are attainable. The metaphor acknowledges obstacles but is not ultimately discouraging.
If we can understand the various barriers that make up this labyrinth, and how some women find their way around them, we can work more effectively to improve the situation. What are the obstructions that women run up against? Let’s explore them in turn.
Vestiges of prejudice.
It is a well-established fact that men as a group still have the benefit of higher wages and faster promotions. In the United States in 2005, for example, women employed full-time earned 81 cents for every dollar that men earned. Is this true because of discrimination or simply because, with fewer family demands placed on them and longer careers on average, men are able to gain superior qualifications? Literally hundreds of correlational studies by economists and sociologists have attempted to find the answer.
Copyright © 2007 Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. All rights reserved
Monday, May 4, 2009
What Finland can teach America about true luxury
New York – What is true luxury? Just when I thought I'd settled on my answer – a flat-screen TV the size of Kansas and a leather-upholstered car that can travel at triple the speed limit – I made several visits to Finland. Shortly after my return the financial crisis hit. Finland has been on my mind ever since. In these hard times, we could learn a few things about luxury from the Finns.
Strolling the streets of Helsinki, the capital, I noticed a lack of grand architecture and opulent homes, and an abundance of modest cars. Helsinki was a nice enough city, and it had some gems of modern design, but part of me felt that Finland was a bit dull. And, strangely, some of the Finns I met seemed to take pride in this.
Finland seemed even duller on my next visit in July. The weather was glorious, but Helsinki felt like a ghost town. I learned that most Finns take a five-week summer vacation, and that many of them disappear for the entire time to tiny, bare-bones cottages in the woods. Curious, I wrangled an invitation to visit one of these secluded cabins. It was meticulously cared for, but lacked any creature comforts. I quickly realized that there was nothing to do and no one to see.
After a couple of days at the cabin I was a convert. It was marvelously relaxing, and I realized the Finns were on to something – a form of luxury that had little to do with high-end products, the quest to acquire them, or the need to show them off. While some Finns pursue the material trappings of success, most seem to feel that the pleasures of time and solitude are more precious.
During my visits, I met some North American expats, including a Canadian who'd lived in the US for years. "I talk to friends back in North America," he told me, "and they tell me about all the latest toys they've bought. Here I'm just puttering away on my little house like a Finn, and that's about it. The pace of life is slower. I like that."
Americans in Finland shared similar sentiments. But they weren't naive about the place, and there was a reason they weren't buying the latest toys. "I'll never become rich in Finland," one explained, "the taxes are just too high." But for him it was a trade-off worth making. "Great healthcare, basically free. My kids get one of the best educations in the world, free." By the way, that includes college, free. He had no plans to move back to the States.
As I spent more time in Helsinki, my own notion of the luxuries available in Finland expanded to include more than just the quiet pleasures of a cabin getaway. Finnish cities are filled with universally well-maintained and high-quality schools, hospitals, buses, trains, and parks. While most Finns might never be able to own a well-appointed SUV or a big house, they value the less-tangible assets they do have, which add up to quality of life and peace of mind.
Finland doesn't pay lip service to providing a level playing field for all its citizens. It really does give the vast majority of its citizens a fair and equal chance in life, in a way that the US just doesn't, no matter how much Americans like to think it does.
Finland has its downsides, of course. The Finns I met described high rates of depression and alcoholism among their countrymen, and admitted that many Finns seem to suffer from low self-esteem. When I returned to the dynamic bustle of New York, I was happy to be back, even with the financial crisis decimating the economy.
Compared with Finns, Americans have qualities I admire and treasure: optimism, an entrepreneurial spirit, and a willingness to be opinionated, for starters. These qualities will help us fight our way back to economic health.
But let's face it: The single-minded pursuit of outsized material consumption helped get us into this mess. As we struggle to get back on our feet, perhaps we should pause for our own "Finnish moment."
Trevor Corson is the author of "The Secret Life of Lobsters" and "The Story of Sushi: An Unlikely Saga of Raw Fish and Rice."
Strolling the streets of Helsinki, the capital, I noticed a lack of grand architecture and opulent homes, and an abundance of modest cars. Helsinki was a nice enough city, and it had some gems of modern design, but part of me felt that Finland was a bit dull. And, strangely, some of the Finns I met seemed to take pride in this.
Finland seemed even duller on my next visit in July. The weather was glorious, but Helsinki felt like a ghost town. I learned that most Finns take a five-week summer vacation, and that many of them disappear for the entire time to tiny, bare-bones cottages in the woods. Curious, I wrangled an invitation to visit one of these secluded cabins. It was meticulously cared for, but lacked any creature comforts. I quickly realized that there was nothing to do and no one to see.
After a couple of days at the cabin I was a convert. It was marvelously relaxing, and I realized the Finns were on to something – a form of luxury that had little to do with high-end products, the quest to acquire them, or the need to show them off. While some Finns pursue the material trappings of success, most seem to feel that the pleasures of time and solitude are more precious.
During my visits, I met some North American expats, including a Canadian who'd lived in the US for years. "I talk to friends back in North America," he told me, "and they tell me about all the latest toys they've bought. Here I'm just puttering away on my little house like a Finn, and that's about it. The pace of life is slower. I like that."
Americans in Finland shared similar sentiments. But they weren't naive about the place, and there was a reason they weren't buying the latest toys. "I'll never become rich in Finland," one explained, "the taxes are just too high." But for him it was a trade-off worth making. "Great healthcare, basically free. My kids get one of the best educations in the world, free." By the way, that includes college, free. He had no plans to move back to the States.
As I spent more time in Helsinki, my own notion of the luxuries available in Finland expanded to include more than just the quiet pleasures of a cabin getaway. Finnish cities are filled with universally well-maintained and high-quality schools, hospitals, buses, trains, and parks. While most Finns might never be able to own a well-appointed SUV or a big house, they value the less-tangible assets they do have, which add up to quality of life and peace of mind.
Finland doesn't pay lip service to providing a level playing field for all its citizens. It really does give the vast majority of its citizens a fair and equal chance in life, in a way that the US just doesn't, no matter how much Americans like to think it does.
Finland has its downsides, of course. The Finns I met described high rates of depression and alcoholism among their countrymen, and admitted that many Finns seem to suffer from low self-esteem. When I returned to the dynamic bustle of New York, I was happy to be back, even with the financial crisis decimating the economy.
Compared with Finns, Americans have qualities I admire and treasure: optimism, an entrepreneurial spirit, and a willingness to be opinionated, for starters. These qualities will help us fight our way back to economic health.
But let's face it: The single-minded pursuit of outsized material consumption helped get us into this mess. As we struggle to get back on our feet, perhaps we should pause for our own "Finnish moment."
Trevor Corson is the author of "The Secret Life of Lobsters" and "The Story of Sushi: An Unlikely Saga of Raw Fish and Rice."
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Chrysler expected to sell assets to Fiat
Chrysler is expected to file a motion Saturday to sell substantially all of its assets to Italian automaker Fiat Group, but the ailing automaker must still deal with creditors who refused to come to a deal to erase the company's debt.
Attorneys for Chrysler say eight plants will not be affected by the sale, including five that the automaker revealed it will shutter by the end of next year.
Attorneys for Chrysler say eight plants will not be affected by the sale, including five that the automaker revealed it will shutter by the end of next year.
How swine flu is infecting Mexico's economy
ECONOMIST: TRADITIONAL May Day rallies have been cancelled in Mexico as the country begins a five-day suspension of “non-essential” activities. The president, Felipe Calderón, has called off (or put behind closed doors) sporting events and concerts, ordered the closure of bars and nightclubs, and introduced general measures to keep people apart, from Friday May 1st to May 5th, in the latest effort to tackle the spread of swine flu. The order seems irrelevant: in Mexico City, the capital, residents have been staying inside anyway for much of the past week, and schools have been closed for several days. One estimate suggests that, as a result, the city’s retail and service industries are losing at least $55m a day.
Just what the economic impact of swine flu will be on Mexico is becoming clearer. A ban on restaurants seating customers is likely to double the cost to the city’s businesses. The capital accounts for roughly a fifth of national GDP (and similar measures are affecting other parts of the country). Financial markets have reacted. Since the emergency began on April 24th the local stockmarket has fallen by 3% (led by a 15% slide in an airport operator, Grupo Aeroportuario del Pacifico). The local currency, the peso, has dipped by about 4% against the dollar, although it recovered slightly on May 1st in response to news that the Inter-American Development Bank would lend the country $3 billion to combat the flu and the economic crisis.
Just what the economic impact of swine flu will be on Mexico is becoming clearer. A ban on restaurants seating customers is likely to double the cost to the city’s businesses. The capital accounts for roughly a fifth of national GDP (and similar measures are affecting other parts of the country). Financial markets have reacted. Since the emergency began on April 24th the local stockmarket has fallen by 3% (led by a 15% slide in an airport operator, Grupo Aeroportuario del Pacifico). The local currency, the peso, has dipped by about 4% against the dollar, although it recovered slightly on May 1st in response to news that the Inter-American Development Bank would lend the country $3 billion to combat the flu and the economic crisis.
Friday, February 20, 2009
The collapse of manufacturing
ECONOMIST: $0.00, not counting fuel and handling: that is the cheapest quote right now if you want to ship a container from southern China to Europe. Back in the summer of 2007 the shipper would have charged $1,400. Half-empty freighters are just one sign of a worldwide collapse in manufacturing. In Germany December’s machine-tool orders were 40% lower than a year earlier. Half of China’s 9,000 or so toy exporters have gone bust. Taiwan’s shipments of notebook computers fell by a third in the month of January. The number of cars being assembled in America was 60% below January 2008.
The destructive global power of the financial crisis became clear last year. The immensity of the manufacturing crisis is still sinking in, largely because it is seen in national terms—indeed, often nationalistic ones. In fact manufacturing is also caught up in a global whirlwind.
Having bailed out the financial system, governments are now being called on to save industry, too. Next to scheming bankers, factory workers look positively deserving. Manufacturing is still a big employer and it tends to be a very visible one, concentrated in places like Detroit, Stuttgart and Guangzhou. The failure of a famous manufacturer like General Motors (GM) would be a severe blow to people’s faith in their own prospects when a lack of confidence is already dragging down the economy. So surely it is right to give industry special support?
Despite manufacturing’s woes, the answer is no. There are no painless choices, but industrial aid suffers from two big drawbacks. One is that government programmes, which are slow to design and amend, are too cumbersome to deal with the varied, constantly changing difficulties of the world’s manufacturing industries. Part of the problem has been a drying-up of trade finance. Nobody knows how long that will last. Another part has come as firms have run down their inventories (in China some of these were stockpiles amassed before the Beijing Olympics). The inventory effect should be temporary, but, again, nobody knows how big or lasting it will be.
The destructive global power of the financial crisis became clear last year. The immensity of the manufacturing crisis is still sinking in, largely because it is seen in national terms—indeed, often nationalistic ones. In fact manufacturing is also caught up in a global whirlwind.
Having bailed out the financial system, governments are now being called on to save industry, too. Next to scheming bankers, factory workers look positively deserving. Manufacturing is still a big employer and it tends to be a very visible one, concentrated in places like Detroit, Stuttgart and Guangzhou. The failure of a famous manufacturer like General Motors (GM) would be a severe blow to people’s faith in their own prospects when a lack of confidence is already dragging down the economy. So surely it is right to give industry special support?
Despite manufacturing’s woes, the answer is no. There are no painless choices, but industrial aid suffers from two big drawbacks. One is that government programmes, which are slow to design and amend, are too cumbersome to deal with the varied, constantly changing difficulties of the world’s manufacturing industries. Part of the problem has been a drying-up of trade finance. Nobody knows how long that will last. Another part has come as firms have run down their inventories (in China some of these were stockpiles amassed before the Beijing Olympics). The inventory effect should be temporary, but, again, nobody knows how big or lasting it will be.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Asia's suffering
ECONOMIST:CHINA’s lunar new year sees the world’s largest migration, as tens of millions of workers flock home. Deserting for a few days the factories that make the goods that fill the world’s shops, they surge back to their native villages. This week, however, as they feasted to the deafening rattle of the firecrackers lit to greet the Year of the Ox, their celebrations had an anxious tinge (see article). Many will not have jobs to go back to.
Some Asians are blaming the West. The Western consensus in favour of globalisation lured them, they say, into opening their economies and pursuing export-led growth to satisfy the bottomless pit of Western consumer demand. They have been betrayed. Western financial incompetence has trashed the value of their investments and consumer demand has dried up. This explanation, which absolves Asian governments of responsibility for economic suffering, has an obvious appeal across the region.
Awkwardly, however, it tells only one part of the story. Most of the slowdown in regional economic growth so far stems not from a fall in net exports but from weaker domestic demand. Even in China, the region’s top exporter, imports are falling faster than exports.
Yet infrastructure spending alone is not a long-term solution. This sort of stimulus will sooner or later become unaffordable, and growth based on it will run out of steam. To get onto a sustainable long-term growth path—and to help pull the rest of the world out of recession—Asia’s economies need to become less dependent on exports in other ways.
Asian governments must introduce structural reforms that encourage people to spend and reduce the need for them to save. In China, farmers must be given reliable title to their land so that they can borrow money against it or sell it. In many countries, including China, governments need to establish safety-nets that ease worries about the cost of children’s education and of health care. And across Asia, economies need to shift away from increasingly capital-intensive manufacturing towards labour-intensive services, so that a bigger share of national income goes to households.
Some Asians are blaming the West. The Western consensus in favour of globalisation lured them, they say, into opening their economies and pursuing export-led growth to satisfy the bottomless pit of Western consumer demand. They have been betrayed. Western financial incompetence has trashed the value of their investments and consumer demand has dried up. This explanation, which absolves Asian governments of responsibility for economic suffering, has an obvious appeal across the region.
Awkwardly, however, it tells only one part of the story. Most of the slowdown in regional economic growth so far stems not from a fall in net exports but from weaker domestic demand. Even in China, the region’s top exporter, imports are falling faster than exports.
Yet infrastructure spending alone is not a long-term solution. This sort of stimulus will sooner or later become unaffordable, and growth based on it will run out of steam. To get onto a sustainable long-term growth path—and to help pull the rest of the world out of recession—Asia’s economies need to become less dependent on exports in other ways.
Asian governments must introduce structural reforms that encourage people to spend and reduce the need for them to save. In China, farmers must be given reliable title to their land so that they can borrow money against it or sell it. In many countries, including China, governments need to establish safety-nets that ease worries about the cost of children’s education and of health care. And across Asia, economies need to shift away from increasingly capital-intensive manufacturing towards labour-intensive services, so that a bigger share of national income goes to households.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
china - currency valuation
WSJ:On Thursday, President Obama's nominee for Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, told U.S. lawmakers that President Barack Obama, "backed by the conclusions of a broad range of economists -- believes that China is manipulating its currency." No Chinese official of Mr. Geithner's standing has fired back -- a move analysts say shows that China doesn't want to overreact to the statement -- but Saturday morning an official from China's Ministry of Commerce said "we never have used currency manipulation or exchange-rate manipulation as a mains to gain an advantage in international trade." The statement, provided by an official from the ministry's news department, also said China would not "rely on devaluations" of its currency, the yuan, to promote exports.
Chinese officials are deeply concerned that the global economic downturn could spur protectionist moves in the U.S. and elsewhere that could further damage China's trade-dependent economy. Mr. Geithner's comments marked a significant escalation in U.S. criticism of China's exchange-rate system.In recent years, China did let the yuan strengthen, but stopped last year as its economy weakened. Some analysts have expressed concern that Beijing might let the yuan weaken, although Chinese officials have ruled that out.
Chinese officials are deeply concerned that the global economic downturn could spur protectionist moves in the U.S. and elsewhere that could further damage China's trade-dependent economy. Mr. Geithner's comments marked a significant escalation in U.S. criticism of China's exchange-rate system.In recent years, China did let the yuan strengthen, but stopped last year as its economy weakened. Some analysts have expressed concern that Beijing might let the yuan weaken, although Chinese officials have ruled that out.
India not facing recession: Chidambaram
toi:Union home minister P Chidambaram on Saturday said India is not facing recession but only a slowdown.
Delivering a lecture after launching the Bharatiya Yuva Shakthi Trust here, he said manufacturing was facing a sharper slowdown. "We have to take counter-(measures) and sometimes corrective measures to ensure high domestic demand. While the government is taking fiscal measures, the RBI is taking monetary measures," the home minister said.
Stating that there was some "monetary shock" due to the drying up of overseas as well as non-banking lending, Chidambaram said the public sector banks handled the larger portion of loans.
Delivering a lecture after launching the Bharatiya Yuva Shakthi Trust here, he said manufacturing was facing a sharper slowdown. "We have to take counter-(measures) and sometimes corrective measures to ensure high domestic demand. While the government is taking fiscal measures, the RBI is taking monetary measures," the home minister said.
Stating that there was some "monetary shock" due to the drying up of overseas as well as non-banking lending, Chidambaram said the public sector banks handled the larger portion of loans.
Monday, January 19, 2009
GAME, SET, MATCH !
Tennis, once known tobe a rich man's game has huge fan followers these days thanks to the media popularity. Just few weeks back, I had the once in a lifetime opputunity to watch some of that action right here in doha in the company of my family & friends. Thank you QTF.
One of my close friends got a signature ball & wrist band from Federer....lucky....grrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Australian open just got started today in melbourne & our sania didi has registered a win. Somdev bhaiya where r u???? Millions of indians are waiting to hear more from him.
Some cricket action starts too this week..........thank god for this distraction from the current financial crisis. By the way I also heard many richies have decided to slow down their shopping for sometime, sensible right?
One of my close friends got a signature ball & wrist band from Federer....lucky....grrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Australian open just got started today in melbourne & our sania didi has registered a win. Somdev bhaiya where r u???? Millions of indians are waiting to hear more from him.
Some cricket action starts too this week..........thank god for this distraction from the current financial crisis. By the way I also heard many richies have decided to slow down their shopping for sometime, sensible right?
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Factory Closures Strain China's Labor Law
WSJ:SHENZHEN, China -- The global economic downturn is testing China's efforts to improve labor laws, pitting the need to give basic legal protections to 700 million workers against the need to keep businesses afloat.
The country's economic emergence boosted incomes, but also led to complaints that workers' rights were being trampled. In response, the central government in January 2008 introduced workplace-protection legislation, known as the Labor Contract Law. The law sought to tighten job security, to make dismissing workers more difficult, and to guarantee severance pay of one month's salary for each year of employment. Last year, China added new job-discrimination laws and made it easier to file complaints against employers.
But as the global financial crisis hits the heart of the world's factory floor, labor activists say officials are turning a blind eye to the new requirements. Local governments deny they are becoming lax, yet complaints against employers languish in huge backlogs as many are simply shuttering their factories.
Migrant workers who returned home from China's Guangdong Province after losing their jobs look for work at a labor market in Chengdu. One worker advertises that he will take any job.
"The enforcement of the Labor Contract Law is facing new problems," Hua Jianmin, chairman of the National People's Congress Standing Committee, China's top legislative body, said last month at a meeting on the law.
One problem is that China's manufacturing sector contracted for the fifth consecutive month in December, according to the CLSA China Purchasing Managers Index.
"Pressures from the labor law may encourage factories to close rather than pay what they owe to workers under the law," says Liu Kaiming, executive direct at the Institute of Contemporary Observation, a Shenzhen-based labor group.
Write to Sky Canaves at sky.canaves@wsj.com
The country's economic emergence boosted incomes, but also led to complaints that workers' rights were being trampled. In response, the central government in January 2008 introduced workplace-protection legislation, known as the Labor Contract Law. The law sought to tighten job security, to make dismissing workers more difficult, and to guarantee severance pay of one month's salary for each year of employment. Last year, China added new job-discrimination laws and made it easier to file complaints against employers.
But as the global financial crisis hits the heart of the world's factory floor, labor activists say officials are turning a blind eye to the new requirements. Local governments deny they are becoming lax, yet complaints against employers languish in huge backlogs as many are simply shuttering their factories.
Migrant workers who returned home from China's Guangdong Province after losing their jobs look for work at a labor market in Chengdu. One worker advertises that he will take any job.
"The enforcement of the Labor Contract Law is facing new problems," Hua Jianmin, chairman of the National People's Congress Standing Committee, China's top legislative body, said last month at a meeting on the law.
One problem is that China's manufacturing sector contracted for the fifth consecutive month in December, according to the CLSA China Purchasing Managers Index.
"Pressures from the labor law may encourage factories to close rather than pay what they owe to workers under the law," says Liu Kaiming, executive direct at the Institute of Contemporary Observation, a Shenzhen-based labor group.
Write to Sky Canaves at sky.canaves@wsj.com
Sunday, January 11, 2009
India's Enron - Satyam Computers
ECONOMIST: SATYAM means “truth” in Sanskrit, an ancient Indian language. On January 7th Satyam Computer Services, one of the country’s biggest software and services companies, revealed some alarming truths about Indian capitalism, even in its spiffiest industry. The company’s founder and chairman, B. Ramalinga Raju, confessed to a $1.47 billion fraud on its balance sheet, which he and his brother, Satyam’s managing director, had disguised from the company’s board, senior managers and auditors for several years. “It was like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten,” Mr Raju wrote.
The tiger carried Mr Raju deep into the woods. Quarter after quarter, he inflated Satyam’s profits, even as operations expanded and costs grew. The company, which is listed on both the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the Bombay Stock Exchange, now claims to have 53,000 employees, and customers in 66 countries, including 185 companies in the Fortune 500. In its books for the third quarter it reported 50.4 billion rupees ($1.03 billion) of cash and 3.76 billion of earned interest that do not in fact exist. It also understated its liabilities by 12.3 billion rupees and overstated the money it is owed by 4.9 billion.
The ride took a final turn on December 16th, when Mr Raju tried to buy two firms owned by his family, Maytas Properties and Maytas Infra, for $1.6 billion. Satyam’s supine board approved the proposal but shareholders revolted. They thought it was a brazen attempt to siphon cash out of Satyam, in which the Raju family held a small stake, into firms the family held more tightly. In fact, it turns out, it was Mr Raju’s last desperate attempt to plug the hole in Satyam’s balance sheet with Maytas’s assets.
The deal was swiftly aborted. In the aftermath, four non-executive directors quit, hoping to salvage their own credibility, and Mr Raju’s creditors came knocking. They dumped most of the Satyam shares he had pledged as collateral for the 12.3 billion rupees in loans. The ride was over. The daunting task of rescuing Satyam falls to Ram Mynampati, its chief operating officer, who is now interim chief executive.
The task of rehabilitating corporate India is equally daunting. It has long basked in the reflected glory of its information-technology firms. Run by cerebral, clean-living professionals, they employ India’s brightest youngsters and serve the bluest of blue-chip companies. These digital ambassadors have lent corporate India a certain “mystique”, says Sharmila Gopinath of the Asian Corporate Governance Association (ACGA), based in Hong Kong. But that reputation rests largely on the efforts of one or two companies, such as Infosys, which are impeccably run. Investors delude themselves if they think standards in most Indian technology firms, let alone the rest of its 9,000 listed companies, are close to those set by Infosys.
The illusion persists because it is not easy to gauge corporate governance objectively. ACGA’s own 2007 ranking of corporate governance placed India third out of 11 Asian countries, behind Hong Kong and Singapore, but far ahead of China, in ninth place. India’s financial-reporting standards are high, its principal regulator, the Securities and Exchange Board of India, is independent of the government, and its business press is enthusiastic. But enforcement is weak, loopholes large, and shareholder activism is lacklustre. “There is virtually no voting by poll at AGMs”, ACGA notes, “and meetings are often held in remote locations.”
The government has introduced a new companies bill, which would allow shareholders to pursue class-action lawsuits, but it will probably lapse when elections are called some time before May. Even if a new government passes the legislation, India’s cumbersome courts tend to delay justice to the point of denying it.
New laws may matter less than the spirit that animates them. Satyam’s independent directors, for example, met the standards set by the NYSE. But they did not ask hard questions. Directors in India may sit on as many as 15 boards, which leaves them little time to do their job properly.
But even an assertive board and reputed auditors will struggle to stop managers who are determined to hide their dirty laundry from view. About half of the 30 companies in the Sensex, India’s benchmark stockmarket index, are run by business families, most of who trace their roots back to the closed economy of India’s past. “They don’t always understand the new rules,” says Ms Gopinath. “Until investors stand up and say these practices are unacceptable, what reason do companies have to change?”
The tiger carried Mr Raju deep into the woods. Quarter after quarter, he inflated Satyam’s profits, even as operations expanded and costs grew. The company, which is listed on both the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the Bombay Stock Exchange, now claims to have 53,000 employees, and customers in 66 countries, including 185 companies in the Fortune 500. In its books for the third quarter it reported 50.4 billion rupees ($1.03 billion) of cash and 3.76 billion of earned interest that do not in fact exist. It also understated its liabilities by 12.3 billion rupees and overstated the money it is owed by 4.9 billion.
The ride took a final turn on December 16th, when Mr Raju tried to buy two firms owned by his family, Maytas Properties and Maytas Infra, for $1.6 billion. Satyam’s supine board approved the proposal but shareholders revolted. They thought it was a brazen attempt to siphon cash out of Satyam, in which the Raju family held a small stake, into firms the family held more tightly. In fact, it turns out, it was Mr Raju’s last desperate attempt to plug the hole in Satyam’s balance sheet with Maytas’s assets.
The deal was swiftly aborted. In the aftermath, four non-executive directors quit, hoping to salvage their own credibility, and Mr Raju’s creditors came knocking. They dumped most of the Satyam shares he had pledged as collateral for the 12.3 billion rupees in loans. The ride was over. The daunting task of rescuing Satyam falls to Ram Mynampati, its chief operating officer, who is now interim chief executive.
The task of rehabilitating corporate India is equally daunting. It has long basked in the reflected glory of its information-technology firms. Run by cerebral, clean-living professionals, they employ India’s brightest youngsters and serve the bluest of blue-chip companies. These digital ambassadors have lent corporate India a certain “mystique”, says Sharmila Gopinath of the Asian Corporate Governance Association (ACGA), based in Hong Kong. But that reputation rests largely on the efforts of one or two companies, such as Infosys, which are impeccably run. Investors delude themselves if they think standards in most Indian technology firms, let alone the rest of its 9,000 listed companies, are close to those set by Infosys.
The illusion persists because it is not easy to gauge corporate governance objectively. ACGA’s own 2007 ranking of corporate governance placed India third out of 11 Asian countries, behind Hong Kong and Singapore, but far ahead of China, in ninth place. India’s financial-reporting standards are high, its principal regulator, the Securities and Exchange Board of India, is independent of the government, and its business press is enthusiastic. But enforcement is weak, loopholes large, and shareholder activism is lacklustre. “There is virtually no voting by poll at AGMs”, ACGA notes, “and meetings are often held in remote locations.”
The government has introduced a new companies bill, which would allow shareholders to pursue class-action lawsuits, but it will probably lapse when elections are called some time before May. Even if a new government passes the legislation, India’s cumbersome courts tend to delay justice to the point of denying it.
New laws may matter less than the spirit that animates them. Satyam’s independent directors, for example, met the standards set by the NYSE. But they did not ask hard questions. Directors in India may sit on as many as 15 boards, which leaves them little time to do their job properly.
But even an assertive board and reputed auditors will struggle to stop managers who are determined to hide their dirty laundry from view. About half of the 30 companies in the Sensex, India’s benchmark stockmarket index, are run by business families, most of who trace their roots back to the closed economy of India’s past. “They don’t always understand the new rules,” says Ms Gopinath. “Until investors stand up and say these practices are unacceptable, what reason do companies have to change?”
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Shopped out
ECONOMIST:IN THE city centre, Poundland is heaving with post-Christmas bargain hunters snapping up everything from underwear to shampoo, some of it for even less than the promised £1 ($1.46). Elsewhere in Leeds brightly coloured sale signs fill shop windows as varied as Ann Summers, a racy lingerie chain, and Harvey Nichols, a pricey department store.
For most on the high street, it has been a grim few months, and Leeds is no exception. Next door to Poundland, the Officers Club, a men’s fashion chain which recently called in administrators, is selling dinner jackets for less than the price of a night out (£20.80 to be exact) and slashing 60% off much else. Nearby a sports outfitter and greetings-card shop are both holding closing-down sales, with 75% off. A branch of zavvi, a music and video store that has also collapsed, is handling queues 20 people deep at its tills as shoppers rush to snap up discounted £2.99 albums and to spend gift vouchers while they can.
Jonathan de Mello at Experian foresees a radical restructuring of the market as consumer habits change and smaller retailers go to the wall. The winners are likely to be the big shopping centres where people go for an experience which might include a decent meal and also encourages them to shop on impulse as well as for necessities. Shops in high streets without sufficient “footfall”, however, will be among the losers
For most on the high street, it has been a grim few months, and Leeds is no exception. Next door to Poundland, the Officers Club, a men’s fashion chain which recently called in administrators, is selling dinner jackets for less than the price of a night out (£20.80 to be exact) and slashing 60% off much else. Nearby a sports outfitter and greetings-card shop are both holding closing-down sales, with 75% off. A branch of zavvi, a music and video store that has also collapsed, is handling queues 20 people deep at its tills as shoppers rush to snap up discounted £2.99 albums and to spend gift vouchers while they can.
Jonathan de Mello at Experian foresees a radical restructuring of the market as consumer habits change and smaller retailers go to the wall. The winners are likely to be the big shopping centres where people go for an experience which might include a decent meal and also encourages them to shop on impulse as well as for necessities. Shops in high streets without sufficient “footfall”, however, will be among the losers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)