One thing I can say I am proud of in Vancouver is the city’s outstanding transit system, TransLink. When compared with other cities that I have been to across North America, Vancouver’s is definitely one of the best. However, many people in the lower mainland, including many businesses believe that the government should provide more funding for the system.

Although the government just recently developed the Canada Line, which directly connects downtown Vancouver with Richmond, people still want more. The business who support this, especially businesses in housing development, have come to appreciate transit as many consumers buy property nowadays based on how easily accessible it is by transit. The expansion in the last couple of years has caused an enormous increase in property sales in the suburban areas of the lower mainland.

The problem is not that the government does not want to increase funding for the system, its that they do not have enough money to do so. From the Olympics, the recent development of the Canada Line, and several other factors, provincial taxes are already inflated. The only proposed solutions people have thought up are to increase property taxes or increase fare charges, solutions the government is against.

My take on this issue is that an increase in funding for TransLink would be beneficial to many people, businesses and the environment. However, due to the governments current financial position, I do not think it is wise to begin putting money into transit at this time. In the future, I do expect that they will consider a large improvement to compensate for BC’s growing population.

Sources:

Translink Skytrain Picture

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/business-groups-push-for-improved-transit-funding/article4552888/#

Recently, an old ski coach of mine, Ryan Prentice, bought into the slowly expanding market of custom built skis.  As part owner of Folsom Custom Skis, based in Denver, Colorado, Ryan works alongside three other members who create fully custom skis based on consumer preferences.  Being a small business, Folsom cannot compete with the number of products other companies like K2 and Rossignol produce.  In fact, compared to the thousands of skis these companies produce, Folsom is only forecasting on producing between 180 and 250 skis this year.  However, as Mike McCabe, another of the part owners, says “For us, it’s about brand recognition and quality.” I personally own a pair of these skis and completely agree with this statement.  The amount of time that is put into each and every ski is unlike any other company and allows Folsom to build a ski that will perform better and last a lot longer.  Adding to this that the skis are custom built for each specific customer puts Folsom in a category of its own.

In Response to Wency Leung’s blog, in the Globe and Mail’s Hot Button Blog, I agree that informal relationships between employers and employees are becoming more and more prominent nowadays. This comes partially from the development of social media sites like Facebook which allow people to be more open about their personal lives. Because of this, a younger generation of workers see nothing inappropriate about adding their employers on Facebook and creating a more personal relationship between the two parties. Where older employees, who never had these sites growing up, believe that these relationships are inappropriate, the new generation of workers is not afraid to casually hang-out with their employers.

Relationships like these are beneficial for both the employer and employee. On the side of the employee, this relationship creates a more enjoyable atmosphere at work which makes intrinsically motivated and satisfied employees. When employees are intrinsically motivated and enjoy their work, they are also more productive. Therefore, it is also beneficial from the point of view of the employer as well.  Despite their benefits, these affiliations can cause misunderstandings in the hierarchal stance of employers over employees in an organization. These misunderstandings can lead to disrespectful behaviour and a decrease in productivity. Due to the close relationship, discipline may also be harder to deliver as neither party wants to hurt the other.

It is my belief, that nowadays it is important for employers to have more than just an office based relationship with their employees. However, these relationships cannot be too extensive as hierarchal levels have to stay in tact and employers have to discipline employees when wrongdoings have occurred.

Sources:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/should-your-boss-be-your-facebook-friend/article5086742/

In Dabir Rashid’s Blog Post, Is Research in Motion (RIM) Back in Motion?, Dabir talks about how he does not believe RIM is in trouble of bankruptcy right now.  He believes that with the release of Blackberry 10 in 2013 either, RIM will begin to regain its reputation of being among the top mobile technology firms, or another technology firm will buy it out.  Dabir also believes that the company is “too big to fail.”

I agree with Dabir in the sense that the Blackberry 10 is RIM’s last big chance to regain its reputation.  They have fallen far behind their competitors and if they want to work their way back up in this industry they need to be able to develop top of the line products on a regular basis, starting with the Blackberry 10.  However, in contrast to what Dabir said, I do not believe that the company will be bought out nor that they are simply so big that they are not able to go bankrupt.

When I think of companies that are “too big to fail,” I of companies like General Motors.  The only reason this company was bailed out was because the losses to the US economy would have been greater if they had gone bankrupt.  When I look into RIM I simply do not see this.  I do not believe that the company is big enough to cause another technology giant to buy them out because of a loss of research, and I especially do not see the government intervening either.

The NHL lockout is affecting more than just the players and millions of fans, it is also affecting sporting goods companies.  Bauer, an enormous supplier of hockey goods, has decided to expand into the rapidly expanding North American market of lacrosse.  Although the NHL lockout will not affect the company too much, Bauer believes that this plan will lighten the impact.  Dominating the global market for hockey equipment, the company’s biggest customer base are the children around the world who love and play the sport.  Because of the increase in popularity with lacrosse for kids, Bauer believes that it can step up and fill a similar place in this new market.  Having played hockey since I was five years old, I know that Bauer makes phenomenal equipment.  In fact, my favourite stick was the Bauer Vapour 40 which I played with for several years.  As a company that produces such high quality equipment, it is my personal opinion that Bauer is completely capable of expanding into this market and succeeding with selling to kids who are passionate about the sport.  My only question: Why didn’t they do it sooner?

Sources:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/bauer-aims-to-rebound-from-nhl-lockout-with-lacrosse-power-play/article4595424/

The demand for smartphones has been rapidly increasing since their release in 2006.  However, the producers are slowly running low on ideas for newer, better, and different products.  This struggle for originality has caused many disputes between the big smartphone industries and their so called “patented products.”  In such a specific market with distinct consumer tastes, how can a company say that they own a certain idea?

Since 2006, Apple alone has been involved in 142 patent lawsuits with multiple different companies including Samsung and Nokia.  Recently they won a lawsuit over Samsung their Galaxy SIII that contained technology patented by Apple themselves.  A few weeks after winning this battle, Samsung launched an attack of their own on Apple and their newly released IPhone 5.  This war seems endless, as whenever someone comes out with a “new” product, it is trampled on by any company that believes they might have stolen an idea.  Because of this constant fighting, it has become nearly impossible for new companies to enter the market.  Before they can display their products they are completely suffocated by patent infringements that they are spending more money on lawyers than developing their ideas.  It is unbelievable that because of patents in a market of such similar production, new businesses cannot develop and old ones are forced either to sell or into bankruptcy.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/08/business/Fighters-in-a-Patent-War.html?ref=technology

Unless you have been in a coma for the past 100 years, the chances are you have heard of the ongoing brand war between Pepsi and Coca-Cola.  The two companies produce the same type of product, cola, but people tend to hold Coke with a higher regard.  Most people believe that Coke simply has a better taste while Pepsi strongly disagrees.  In many marketing campaigns Pepsi has tried to prove to people that their product is superior in taste compared to that of Coca-Cola.  Some of the more popular advertisements include commercials that show a blind folded test of the two companies and their colas.  The people in the advertisement, usually people who prefer Coke, always choose Pepsi as the better tasting product.  In other advertisements, like the one below, Pepsi is trying to prove that people prefer their product over Coke’s by saying that people will go out of their way and shovel through mounds of snow just to get a drink.  Personally, I prefer the taste of Coke to Pepsi.  I believe that most people do.  By advertising in this way, Pepsi is trying to move up the mind ladder people have of the taste of cola; they are fighting a loosing battle.  Instead of fighting for this, I believe it would be more productive for pepsi to take a commanding lead in another area, such as being more healthy or more environmentally friendly.  This tactic may lead people towards their product and away from Coca-Cola.

Sources:

http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/battle-of-the-brands-pepsi-vs-coke-advertisements/

As of August 9, 2012 Goldman Sachs is free of charges.  After more than two years of  allegedly having played a role in the financial crisis which almost sent the world into another depression, the U.S Justice Department is no longer going to prosecute the company.  They have come to the conclusion that under the law there is no basis to prosecute Goldman Sachs with the allegations for which they were to be charged.  These allegations included the mistreatment and deception of numerous investors for the company’s own personal gain.  They would intentionally mislead their investors to buy securities which they would bet against themselves. As well, the culture of the firm, according to a former employee, was horrible.  The company is more interested in making money than with the satisfaction and fair treatment of their clients.  Although they could not be charged, what Goldman Sachs did was completely unethical.  In the article “Goldman Sachs, Not Criminal, Just Deceptive and Immoral” the author used U.S Senator Carl Levin’s statement: “whether the decision by the Department of Justice is the product of weak laws or weak enforcement, Goldman Sachs’ actions were deceptive and immoral.” This statement outlines the governments own perception of the company’s actions.  Hopefully, in the future, Goldman Sachs can learn from its mistakes and become an ethical company that values its clients and investors.

Sources:

http://business-ethics.com/2012/08/14/10074-goldman-sachs-not-criminal-just-deceptive-and-immoral/

http://theweekinethics.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/the-week-in-ethics-goldman-sachs-2012-problem-with-culture/