The Eld versus The Young

I've been thinking a lot lately about the workforce, salaries, and technology. Specifically, old people and young people.

Now this isn't meant to offend anyone, though just by saying that you know that it is going to. Oh well, such is life.

You see, elder employees make a lot more money than younger ones do. Why? The answer is experience. They are the experienced, savvy veterans, and said experience is worth more money than the impertinence and folly of youth.

I totally agree with this logic. There is nothing more satisfying to me than watching a savvy veteran who's good at what he does--and knows it--go about his work, whether it be an NBA player, a waiter, a cop, or an office employee. I think it's fascinating to watch someone who's been there, done that, and got the free shirt go do their thing with the confidence of knowing that they have done this task before successfully, and will go do it again.

However, in today's workplace, I've come to the somewhat startling conclusion that experience does not carry the premium value that it used to. In fact, it's almost a detriment at times.

The reason, of course, is technology. Technology has rewritten almost everyone's lives in the last 20 years. No job is the same as it was 20 years ago. We are literally working through a paradigm shift in the way our jobs are done. On top of that, technology continues to evolve at a breakneck pace. It's not like there was a major shift, and we've all had time to sit back, learn the new way of doing things, and settle into a routine. Oh no. As soon as you learn to program in Visual Basic...Microsoft releases C++. As soon as you learn to program in C++...here comes .Net. As soon as you are comfortable with a new operating system, a newer, more advanced model is released that everyone must have to communicate with each other. As soon as you learn the ins and outs with an accounting system your office uses, either a new version is released, or an entirely new system is purchases, again for all the necessary upgrades.

It's literally breathtaking how much and how quickly technology has changed around us. And, unfortunately, the older generation has a hard time keeping up.

Part of it is familiarity. I'm in a unique position to observe, as the PC was introduced to schools while I was in them. So I ride the line between the old and the new: I didn't have access to computers in my youth (birth through about 6th grade), but did learn a lot with them through school (7th grade on). Many people younger than I am--and by younger I mean 2-4 years--have literally grown up with computers their entire lives. They're comfortable with them. They can roll with the punches. They are used to technology changing rapidly; that is how it is been their entire life. They don't know it any other way.

A 50 year old, however, is not comfortable with computers, as they were introduced late in his life. He's probably not as versatile with technological changes, as the world was more stable before the introduction of the PC. And thus, he has a harder time adapting. Is it impossible for him to adapt? No. It's just harder, and for many, the comfort level that the younger generation has with these machines is impossible for them to reach. They simply haven't grown up with them, and nothing will ever change that.

So suddenly experience isn't as valuable as it used to be. Suddenly being flexible, living in the moment, being able to adapt quickly, and being technologically sound is as--if not more--valuable than a lifetime's worth of experience. It doesn't matter how things were done 20 years ago, because that was literally a different world.

So what does that mean to the modern workforce? It means the modern generation is carrying more responsibility than their pay indicates. Introductory salaries have not increased very much, if at all. Additional raises are not given to younger employees as compared to older; can you imagine the reaction? We are still outnumbered, remember. The Baby Boomers have not all retired yet. Imagine a company not even saying, but going out and giving their younger employees 5% raises while only giving their older employees 3%. Can you imagine the outcry? The morale damage? The turnover? It's almost impossible for them to do.

But...they're not doing as much of the work. I'd be curious to see productivity studies based on age. There's no way they can compete. I have bosses who go to File/Close/File/Exit every single time they close out of Word or Excel. Sure, that's maybe adding 10 seconds to every job. Now do that 20 times a day. Now realize that if they are struggling to figure out, "Hey, all I have to do is click this 'X' in the upper right hand corner", how would they be fairing in more complicated tasks? How would they do with a Pivot Table? A Macro? Designing an Access Database (the simplest kind)?

They can't.

It makes me wonder. Am I overrating experience? Has it always been this way? Has the elder generation always done less of the work, but simply because of their age and time to accrue raises (there is much truth to the phrase, "Nothing makes money like time") been paid more? Has it always been this way, and I just don't realize it since my age makes me the first of the new age of workers?

So will it switch back? What happens when the Baby Boomers retire, and the workforce is entirely populated with employees who grew up with computers, are familiar with them, and familiar with the speed with which technology changes? Will it slow down? Will experience once again become the most valuable tool?

To answer: no, I don't think I'm overrating experience. I think it is truly the chaos created by the latest and possibly greatest paradigm shift. I think the elder generation in the past did earn more of their share of the pie, as their experience was the most valuable thing an employee could bring to the table, and technology didn't play as much of a role as it does now. And I do think it will calm down, and experience will once again become the most valuable tool when the workforce is entirely populated with children of the Computer Age.

I find it fascinating. If I were a business professor, I would study this intently. But I'm not, and as such, I'll just write a blog about it, and laugh every time a boss who makes twice as much as I do does File/Close/File/Exit to get out of Excel.

Besides, it won't be long until SkyNet takes over anyway ;-P

Guest Post Scoring Champion--And No, We're Not Talking About Wilt ChamberlainEric Ericson

So we are a little over 50 games into the NBA season, and if you open to the basketball section of most newspapers you will find Carmelo Anthony’s name at the top of a list. No, this is not the list of NBA players with the most tattoos, or the list of players who have donated the most to charity; this is the scoring leader list. Carmelo sits atop the scoring leader list because he is averaging 30.3 point per game. Yes, Carmelo is averaging 30.3 points per game, but he is not the true NBA scoring leader.

Gilbert Arenas—currently in second place because he is averaging 29.0 points per game—is the true scoring leader. Gilbert has scored 1,480 points in 51 games while Carmelo has only registered 1,121 points in 37 games. One might argue that a player should not held back from receiving an award due to injury—and that argument may have some merit. But our good friend Carmelo did not miss 15 games due to an injury: he missed 15 games because he was suspended for sucker punching a player. He probably should have gotten another 15 for running away and hiding after the sucker punch. Believe me; the Denver Nuggets could have definitely used some of Carmelo’s scoring during his 15 game suspension. Do you really think it helped the Nuggets each night knowing that they had the “NBA scoring leader” who they knew would not contribute a single point each night over the course of 15 games?

Let us revisit the missing games due to injury issue. The value of having the scoring leader on one’s team is that the points help the team try to win the game. If a player is missing games due to injury then they are not contributing any points to the team. The NBA Scoring Leader Award has minimums (70 games or 1,400 points) for a reason, and that reason is that it is more difficult to score bunches of points over a longer period of time. The NBA would not find it fair if they awarded the NBA Scoring Leader to Tracy McGrady because on opening night he lit up the Golden State Warriors for 45 points before injuring his knee in the fourth quarter and missed the rest of the season. Tracy McGrady 20006-2007 NBA Scoring Leader averaging 45 points per game (yeah and 45 points over an 82 game season too)!

What about other sports leagues? Do they give awards to those with the best averages, or the largest totals over the season? In major league baseball having the highest batting average is highly regarded, but so is hitting the most home runs. Imagine someone hitting 85 home runs in baseball in a single season—only to find out the MLB Home Run Leader for that year was someone who hit 83 home runs but played in 10 fewer games (higher home runs per game average). Each league has averages, and while it is good to give awards to those with the highest averages, most awards should be based on season totals. The NHL awards the player who scores the most goals. The NFL awards the running back that accumulates the most rushing yards—not the player with the highest average that missed a game due to injury or suspension.

So who is the real scoring leader? Currently it is Gilbert Arenas, but it might change before the regular season is over. There are still over 30 games remaining in the season. Still 30 games to convince David Stern that the true NBA Scoring Leader should be the player who scores the most points!

My NBA All Star Team AndMy Fantasy All Star Team

Western Conference
* Denotes Starter
Guards: Steve Nash, Suns*; Kobe Bryant, Lakers*; Tracy McGrady, Rockets, Josh Howard, Mavs
Forwards: Dirk Nowitzki, Mavs*; Kevin Garnett, Timberwolves*; Carlos Boozer, Jazz; Tim Duncan, Spurs; Shawn Marion, Suns; Carmelo Anthony, Nuggets
Centers: Yao Ming, Rockets*; Amare Stoudamire, Suns
Injury Reserves (in order): Deron Williams, Jazz; Ray Allen, Sonics; Mehmet Okur, Jazz; Chris Paul, Hornets; Elton Brand, Clippers; Zach Randolph, Trailblazers

Notes: For my injury reserves, they are added to the team in order, regardless of position. For example, if Yao Ming is the first player injured, you still add Deron Williams to the team. You just slide Timmy to center.

Iverson does not make the game for two reasons: 1) he hasn't played enough games in the insanely competitive West to deserve inclusion, and 2) the reason he missed those games was that ridiculous holdout.

It physically pains me to put in Melo over Elton Brand, but I just couldn't do it. The Clippers struggles were too much, and his numbers are down this year.

Tony Parker as an All Star is just insulting; he's one of the top five most overrated players in the league. His stats aren't that great, and his team is in fourth place when they were supposed to be in first (according to the media).

I could flip flop on Williams and Allens' spots on the reserve list; Allen's stats are better, while William's team is better. In the end I went with Williams ahead of him because the West needs another PG.


Eastern Conference
Guards: Gilbert Arenas, Wizards*; Dwyane Wade, Heat*; Joe Johnson, Hawks; Chauncey Billups, Pistons; Vince Carter, Nets
Forwards: LeBron James, Cavs*; Chris Bosh, Raptors*; Jermaine O'Neal, Pacers; Caron Butler, Wizards; Luol Deng, Bulls
Centers: Dwight Howard, Magic*; Emeka Okafur, Bobcats
Injury Reserves (in order): Michael Redd, Bucks; Richard Hamilton, Pistons; Andre Iguodala, 76ers; Antawn Jamison, Wizards; Eddie Curry, Knicks

Notes: Wow the East sucks, though injuries have hurt them (Pierce & Shaq missed too many games, Redd was on the border, AI missed the games he sat and moved West).

Surprised at Okafur's inclusion? Well Shaq as an All Star was a joke, while Okafur has by far the best numbers as a center. Check them out: 15+ pts, 10+ rebs, almost 3 blocks, over 55% from the field. Good enough.

It pisses me off that Richard Hamilton is an All Star. The only reason AI (that's Andre Iguodala) isn't an All Star over him is team record and sharing the ball with Iverson the first quarter of the season. By year's end he will have easily surpassed him. But anyway, Joe Johnson not an All Star almost makes me dismiss the All Star game outright. You could easily make the case that he is their 6th Man.

Isn't it scary how old this team is? Shaq is D-U-N done...Kidd will be done in 2 years...not sure how many years Billups has left...J O'Neal isn't that old agewise, but he's been in the NBA taking a center's pounding since he was 18; I doubt he has any more than 4 years left, if that...Hamilton again shouldn't be on the team, and also is getting old...Jamison and Carter have a few more years left, but they're getting there. In the next 2-4 years, this team will change dramatically.

Fantasy League All Stars
Guard: Gilbert Arenas, Wizards; Dwayne Wade, Heat
Forward: Shawn Marion, Suns; Kevin Garnett, Timberwolves
Center: Tim Duncan, Spurs
Util: Dirk Nowitzki, Mavs; Steve Nash, Suns
Bench: Kobe Bryant, Lakers; Elton Brand, Clippers

Notes: Jason Kidd was a tough omission. It came down to him and Nash, and which do you need more: assits or rebounds? I liked Nash's percentages better (FG, FT, 3PT), so I went with him.

Caron Butler was right there. You could also make a case for him over Brand. What a fantastic year Butler is having.

Anna Nicole Smith

I am FASCINATED by this story.

I'm dead serious. I'm practically giddy over this (you know, as giddy as you can be over a fellow human being dying too soon).

You see, there's an honest to God chance here that in 20-30 years, there's going to be a movie made into this story along the lines of Hollywoodland and The Black Dahlia. There's that compelling of a story here. This isn't just a case of a bimbo B-level star falling from grace and OD'ing. There's so much more at stake here.

Here's the story, from the beginning:

As we all know, Anna Nicole Smith marries J. Howard Marshall at the age of 89. He died 13 months later. We'll call him JH. Upon his death, Anna Nicole was awarded half of his estate as his legal wife: $475 million. The courts in California made this ruling. His son, E. Pierce Marshall (EP), however, sued her immediately in the great state of Texas. JH had not rewritten his will, though several people claimed that JH verbally promised to leave half of his estate to Anna. The state of Texas sided with EP, and awarded Anna nothing. Actually that's not even true: they said she owed the estate $1 million in fees.

This issue is still yet to be resolved, but suffice it to say, there's a half a million dollar pot floating around there. The smart money says Anna is going to get at least some of that, especially since EP died in June of 2006 at the age of 67.

In the meantime, Anna become the premier spokesperson for the new wonderdietdrug Trimspa, which she credited with helping her lose about 80 pounds.

In June of 2006, Smith announced that she was pregnant. She also said that her longtime attorney, Howard Stern (who will she derisively refer to as "Howie"), was the father, and that they had been in love for some time. However, her ex-boyfriend, a photographer named Larry Birkhead, immediately claimed to be the father and sued for a paternity test. Howie is listed as the father of the child on the birth certificate, and is the legal guardian.

Dannielynn (that's how it's spelled; I swear to God. I couldn't make that shit up) was born on September 7. On September 10, her son Daniel died in his mother's hospital room while visiting her and the baby. He was 20. He died from a lethal combination of Zoloft, Lexapro, and methadone.

On September 28, Howie and Anna were married aboard a yacht. However, no marriage certificate was issued, so the marriage is not legally binding. Howie and Anna were staying in the Bahamas to avoid a court-ordered paternity test of their daughter.

On February 8, Smith died in a hotel in Florida. The cause of death has yet to be determined. On February 9, Zsa Zsa Gabor's husband, Frederic Prinz von Anhalt, announced that he had been having a decade long affair with Anna and that HE could be the baby'sdaddy. About that same time, families members claimed that Anna had some of JH's sperm frozen before he died, and that he, in fact, could be the baby'sdaddy!!!!! Can you believe that? I mean seriously, that's what did it for me. Once I heard that--and that makes a lot of sense, if she was smart, she would have done that--I mean, anything is possible, right? Who knows what will happen next?

WHEW. I'm out of breath.

Do you see what I mean? There's a half a BILLION dollars floating around out there, and the person who's most likely going to claim it is a coked-up bimbo who very publicly showed all of America that she has no control of any aspect of her life. Seriously, like none of us would be shocked if she just OD'd? We all saw her on that show! It's the perfect crime!

It all comes down to the baby. Anna is dead, her son is dead, and I'm sure Howie never rewrote Anna's will to say her Mom is the beneficiary. So that little 5 month old gets everything she has, which could easily be half a billion dollars. It's all about who controls the baby.

Here's the odds, as I see it:

75%: Anna Od'd. She is a train wreck, after all.
10%: Trimspa killed her. I'm sure it was not just Trimspa alone, but a combination of Trimspa and whatever drugs she was on. But Trimspa is what pushed her over the edge.
2%: The photographer or Zsa Zsa's husband took her out. This would be far more likely if they had more of an opportunity, but I'm sure Howie kept her well away from them. Still, their motive is high.
1%: EP's estate/widow killed her. If EP himself were alive, this would be much higher. However, this man HATED Anna Nicole. It's not totally out of the question that he made sure that she would be "taken care of" rather than let her take any money home.
1%: Zsa Zsa killed her because of the affair. Hey, Zsa Zsa's crazy, too. And you would say anything's not possible at this point?
11%: Howie killed her. Really, other than ODing, this is the most likely scenario. He's in the perfect position to do it: from her show, we saw that she obviously trusts him implicitly. There's so many drugs flying around that house that it would be easy to slip stuff into her and her son, and they're overlymedicated already. This leaves Dannielynn as the only heir, who he legally controls. Also, if he thinks that one of these other people might be the father, his motivation goes up even more. If he thinks a paternity test will result in him not being named the father, he's out on his ass. It's in his best interest to get rid of her and hope that he can finagle his way out of having to do DNA tests on the baby. He has the best motive and the best opportunity.

It's fascinating, isn't it? When you look at the crazy ass things, it's an honest to God Hollywood murder mystery. Law & Order wishes they could still write shit this good. You've got this crazy, out-of-control, dumb, and doped up woman who all of America could easily see ending up killing herself because of the way she lives her life. Then you've got a brand new baby who can be taken and used easily if she is out of the picture. Then you've got half a BILLION dollars that she can claim.

It's almost literally the perfect crime.

I can't wait to see how this plays out.

Marvel Civil War

Those of you who don't care about comics, just sit this one out.

Those of you who are diehard DC fans, you take a hike too.

Those of you who want more ammo to make fun of me with, well, today is your day, sir. Or madame. Whatever.

So Marvel has introduced a new storyline. A group of schoolchildren were killed in a battle between metahumans (a new term that now covers aliens, heroes, mutants, gods, etc.), and the government introduces the "Superhuman Registration Act". The question literally becomes, "What side are you on?", which is the tagline for the series.

I'm not going to tell you the whole series. If you want to read about it, you can get a good synopsis from wikipedia here. I'll give you a moment to do so.

...

Welcome back. Now, here's the questions I have about all of this:

* Captain America is against the registration? Really? I don't think so. "Glory Boy", as Logan likes to call him, is just that. Captain America is going to toe the company line, and if S.H.I.E.L.D. and the American government say that you have to register, he would be behind it.

* Iron Man is for registration? Really? I don't think so. The lone billionaire? The man who kept his identity secret for years? The Playboy? I don't buy it. The only way this makes sense is if...

Iron Man has been demasked as Tony Stark (this has happened). As such, I can somewhat him saying to himself, "Okay look. I no longer have a secret identity as Iron Man. And let's face it: there are way too many metahumans running around here; there's one on every block now. So if I no longer get my release from being the billionaire running my multi-national company by being Iron Man, I'm going to run this like I do my company: the right way. So I'm in charge, we're all going to fall in line, and that's it."

This does make sense as Iron Man already founded The Iluminati, which was basically with a similar goal in mind. However...this is a bit of a stretch for the character of Iron Man.

* You have a Thor clone who has his godlike powers? I think not. MAYBE you can clone Thor and have his superstrength, but ability to command lightning? He is a god. At some point the supernatural kicks in and the science steps out.

* I think the Spider-Man dilemma was handled perfectly. The entire character of Spider-Man has always been a Greek hero; Parker always tries to do the right thing, but something bad always happens in spite of that. Here he is faced with a dilemma from both sides, and wants to do the right thing, but truly doesn't know how. It's a well done character study and fits him perfectly.

* Here's my biggest problem with this. How in the Hell are the X-Men neutral? Neutral? Are you fricking kidding me? How is this any different from the Mutant Registration Act? Isn't that almost what the X-Men were founded off of? How can they possibly not be against something like this? That's just insane.

Furthermore, Storm has joined with the Anti-Registration heroes. How did the X-Men not team up with them when that happened? How has Wolverine--who has already let known his opinion that he is vehemently opposed to this, but has said he will remain neutral because he doesn't want to break rank with the rest of the X-Men--not jumped ship when Storm did? He was already toeing the line--the second she made that choice, he would have been gone.

* Finally, what are all the Super Villains doing during this? Doctor Doom doesn't see this as a major opportunity? Apocalypse doesn't have another trick up his sleeve after fighting the X-Men? Mephisto doesn't want to try to take the Earth again? The Mandarin's got nothing? Red Skull doesn't want to make a play?

I just see a lot of opportunity here for a big bad guy to step up, and they all seem strangely quiet.

Don't get me wrong. I like the premise behind Civil War. And I also think they'll kill off a bunch of heroes (and villains), as the Marvel Universe has become too bloated. That's a good thing. It's an interesting question to ask oneself: whose side are you on? I see the point of the general population that the metahuman population has become large and destructive enough that the "lone wolf" ways of doing things are no longer acceptable. However, I respect the right of this heroes to want to keep their privacy.

At the point it's at now--the Pro-Registration side is using Supervillians to hunt heroes down, and imprisoning them in the Negative Zone--I would definitely be against it, as it is confirming the Anti-Regses worst fears. However, I might have been talked into it at the beginning. The way things are working right now aren't working, and change is needed. We'll see what that change will be.