As you may be aware of, Stephen Poloz recently made some remarks regarding Canada’s current high youth unemployment rate; it is roughly double Canada’s current total unemployment rate of 6.5%. Making statements such as “young people should work for free“, Poloz caused an uproar, with many people showing their discontent regarding his take on the situation. Personally, I do see some worth in what he was saying; I think people should have to put in some effort to find a job that suits them, and gaining any experience will help speed the whole process up.

However, working for free with no guarantee of later reimbursement or paying contracts does not sit well with me. I see issues both on a personal level and in the big picture. I have many expenses to pay for and am not fully reliant on the Bank of My Parents, therefore I would sooner work in a field completely unrelated to what I want to do and pay my expenses, rather than work in my desired field for free. Also, encouraging the youth to work for free would also encourage businesses to simply not pay young people, potentially making the unemployment issue worse. This concern is outlined as well in the CBC Business News article:

Stephen Poloz, unintended champion of jobless youth

Ultimately, I would have to say I disagree with Poloz. Under most circumstances, I don’t see much benefit coming from youth commonly taking unpaid jobs. It’s just not practical for most students, with high tuition prices and other expenses. Please respond or comment your opinion!

Entrepreneurship is undoubtedly the most high risk realm of business. The amount of dedication and time entrepreneurs put into business ideas is often far more than any employee. They often stake their entire worth on ideas, making the risks even higher. Despite all the effort, so many start-ups end up failing.

Entrepreneurship interests me, and my mom happens to be a successful entrepreneur herself. As such, I have done some reading into strategies entrepreneurs can implement to avoid failure. I came across Martin Zwilling’s blog titled: Ten Ways Entrepreneurs Fail Their Way To The Top.

Many of his points I agree with, and from watching my mom start her own business could support with real life examples. Tips such as “Never rely on a verbal agreement in business” and “Never count on someone who offers to work for free” are extremely legitimate. However, Martin’s number one point was “Don’t spend money you don’t have in the bank”. This was the only tip I questioned. I just don’t see this as possible for almost any start-up situation. First-time entrepreneurs almost never have the required funds to get their business off the ground. I personally think that it is a far better idea to leverage money; using loans and credit is usually the only way business owner’s are able to make any progress. As the old saying goes, ‘It takes money to make money’, and if entrepreneurs always made sure they were in the green, I guarantee there would be a lot less progress. Sure it adds risk, but ultimately that is the name of the game in the industry.

Please feel free to comment or respond, offering your view on this point.

This article on Canada’s wireless providers grabbed my attention. Addressing a combination of topics that have been covered both in my Comm 101 class and my Econ 101 class, I thought it would be a good article to blog on. Both the issue of oligopoly and high barriers to entry associated with the wireless industry are mentioned, with the main focus of the article on how the big three firms (Bell, Telus, and Rogers) don’t use cost as a Point of Difference. Instead of cost leadership these companies, especially Telus, focus on customer experience. This is somewhat unfortunate for consumers because due to the high barriers to entry in the wireless provision industry, mainly the lack of infrastructure and towers, smaller providers have a very hard time matching this quality of experience. As a result, most consumers pay very high phone bills, and don’t have an alternative.

This photo shows just how dominant the big three are; over 80% of the market is controlled by 3 companies.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/CWTA_2011_Q3.svg/360px-CWTA_2011_Q3.svg.png

This dominance, combined with the fact that almost all cell towers are owned by Telus or Rogers allows the big three to ignore cost leadership as a potential defining POD. They can basically charge whatever price they want. Personally, I think phone bills are far too high; I would immediately switch to a provider such as WIND if they had the same coverage and customer experience as the bigger firms.  I know the government has already become involved in an effort to reduce the oligopolistic nature of the industry, but I still think there is a large amount of room for improvement.

This topic has been on my mind since class 15, when in section 107 had an extensive discussion regarding CSR and business ethics. Many examples were discussed, such as the factory collapse in Bangladesh, mentioned in Jordan Andrew’s Business Ethics post. Although I didn’t get a chance to get a comment in, I really wanted to express my opinion regarding where blame should be placed in incidents such as this. People tend to immediately jump to the conclusion that the firm is solely responsible. Although I don’t think they are blameless, I think solely blaming the firm responsible is often wrong. As Jordan mentions in his post, a large amount of pressure is placed on the firms to meet demand, causing managers and owners to make decisions that are potentially harmful.

Also, a point that Paul brought up really resonated with me. His example regarding workers who normally worked for a factory with less than ideal working conditions that turned to prostitution when they were released from working at the factory got me thinking about issues surrounding varying standards in different parts of the world. In Canada, if a factory made employees work in unsafe conditions it would obviously be morally wrong. However, in a developing country where a firm is taking people who normally have to resort to illegal activities to make a living and giving them a secure job, with potentially dangerous working conditions, the risks are actually far less for people in the latter situation. Although the firm would be committing a moral wrong-doing if it were located in a country such as the USA, in places such as Bangladesh the firm may actually be providing a positive alternative to worse situations.

I do acknowledge the fact that forcing workers to work in unsafe is conditions is wrong, and in an ideal world should be non-existent. However, as long as there is no blatant disregard for human life, I think there are special circumstances that make less than ideal working conditions an understandable evil…

To summarize, this issue is far broader than what meets the eye. Blame for incidents such as the Bangladesh Factory Collapse should not fall solely on the firm in most situations; the problem is a result of many more diverse factors.

As more and more North American Oil is sourced from domestic fracking operations, the price of crude oil has been plummeting. According to Shawn McCarthy in the Globe and Mail article:

Oil sinks on Saudi Arabia’s intention to cut prices

crude oil prices have hit lows not seen since 2010. As North American companies such as Suncor Energy Inc. increase the supply of oil, the prices naturally drop due to the law of supply. However, prices are also falling drastically due to existing foreign firms( Oil companies based in countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia) lowering prices, adopting a cost leadership strategy. Their oil is cheaper to produce and also takes advantage of cheaper shipping costs. In an effort to drive out competition, they are lowering prices to levels that North American companies simply cant match, due to fracking being more expensive and shipping costs generally being a lot higher. As we discussed way back in class 7, this Cost Leadership strategy effectively allows foreign oil companies to occupy a distinct rung on the oil industry ladder, despite there being a large number of competing firms.

Recently, the topic of effective marketing strategies has come to my attention several times. Paul has discussed how the marketing game has changed drastically with the increase in technology use in class. significantly, he mentioned that it is  now necessary to be familiar and adept with social media in order to be an effective marketer. The topic has also come up in several articles, such as this one from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/marketers-turn-further-from-traditional-media-study-shows/article21299043/

This article basically discusses how companies are drastically changing how their marketing budget is distributed; moving away from traditional resources(such as print) and instead focusing on digital resources like online movies and search advertising. The article happens to compliment nicely with a blog Calvina Ikawan recently posted on Skippy’s new marketing campaign. All of their new strategies are digital, relying heavily on videos and gifs to promote their products. Calvina’s blog can be found here:

 https://blogs.ubc.ca/calvinaikawan/2014/10/09/skippy-returns-to-tv-in-comeback-bid/

The fact is, modern technology has completely revolutionized the marketing industry, and as Paul said, it is now essential for companies to become proficient with digital marketing. The Globe and Mail article I’ve cited even quotes Ad executive Peter Ignazi stating that Digital Marketing has become so mainstream that it shouldn’t even be called digital… it should simply be called marketing.

This shift raises the difficult question of how much companies should pull out of traditional advertising methods. If online advertisement is so effective, and generally much cheaper, should companies even concern themselves with outdated methods such as print advertising or television? Feel free to comment or blog in response!

Amazon employees are requesting pay for extensive security screening after work. Amazon requires every employee to be screened after work in order to combat the stealing of warehouse items. Because of the amount of employees and the thoroughness of the screening, it takes employees roughly 30 minutes to pass through after their shift.

Including security screening in wages has many different angles to look at. On one hand, the fact that the screening is mandatory and takes up such a significant portion of worker’s time merits that pay should be allotted to the time spent inline. However, it also could be looked at as a necessary part of commuting to and from work, in which case pay would not be merited.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-02/security-checks-paid-as-work-supreme-court-will-decide#r=nav-f-story

http://blogs.lawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/security-guard-checking-brief-case-400-300×210.jpg

I don’t see this law passing. I think the extra time spent in security should be just considered part of the workers commute, and therefore does not require pay. Ultimately, just like a person factors commute time into their choosing of a job, I think the security screening is a factor that an employee should take into consideration before taking a job. If they have an issue with waiting in line for that line, they should find another job. This would hopefully cause Amazon to adjust wages as well, in order make the job more appealing and make up for the hindrance of security.

As oil and gas becomes harder and harder to acquire through standard methods, the process of Fracking is becoming more and more prominent. The process of Fracking is surrounded with negative claims questioning its safety and environmental responsibility. As a result Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have all put in place anti-Fracking regulations. In doing so, they’ve caused unrest in the western side of Canada, as people from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and BC are angered by the fact they receive provincial funds through Canada’s Equalization Program, that are mainly earned by the taxes on their oil industries. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/fracking-opponents-should-stop-biting-the-hand-that-feeds/article20937977/

This picture shows one off the dangerous potential results of Fracking if fluids used enter a well or water source. http://www.sustainablemontreal.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/ScreenHunter_01-Aug.-30-14.35.gif

This dispute, resulting from the potentially hypocritical actions of the eastern provinces, provides a prime example of ethics in business, and how they can easily vary from party to party. Also, it demonstrates how the ethical choice might not always be the right choice, as it could violate another set of ethics. The environmental gain comes at the cost of burdening the rest of the country. Both sides present valid arguments in my opinion, and personally I find it hard to pick a position. I’ve come across just as many articles and documentaries supporting Fracking as I have ones fighting it. However, the fact that the eastern provinces have little industry or income sources leads me to lean towards the pro-Fracking side. The business resulting from engaging in Fracking would greatly benefit these provinces, and help them avoid deficits that they have been struggling with.

Although young adults never represented a massive consumer portion for auto-makers, the amount of young people buying cars is on the decrease. Understandable, considering tuition is expensive, public transit is more developed, and insurance and gas costs much more. Students and graduates have far more on their plate these days, and as a result auto-makers are losing this customer segment. However, it is not as if young people aren’t interested in owning a vehicle. They still want to own a car, it’s just no longer practical.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commuting/kids-today-millennials-want-wheels-but-balk-at-extra-costs/article20800617/

Most auto-companies are looking at ways to re-enter this customer segment. Some companies, such as GMC, offer rebates usually between 500$-1000$ or gas cards to help with initial ownership costs. GM is also considering producing new models that are cheaper but still aesthetic, such as the NSX Concept(cost roughly 20k):

http://www.wired.com/2012/01/acura-nsx-concept/

Ford is taking a different approach, testing its zipcar service to determine whether it is more appealing to young people who are unable to afford start up cost associated with buying a car. Similar to car2go, zipcar allows someone to essentially rent vehicles on demand.

Personally, I think strategies similar to Ford’s are the most appealing. Even at reduced cost, most students have a hard time coming up with the money to buy a car, and it is easily an avoidable expense with today’s public transit. Also, by making cars so much cheaper for students, companies lose significant revenue. Finally, zipcar and car2go use environmentally friendly vehicles, which allow the younger generation to be environmentally responsible without having to pay the high prices associated with hybrids or EVs. As far as selling cars to young people goes, I say simply wait until they reach an age where having a personally owned vehicle is more attractive and affordable.

Please feel free to comments; let me know whether auto companies should be concerned about their reducing customer segments, as well as your opinion on owning your own car.

Hello Everyone,

As stated in Freidman’s article, a business’s main goal is to make profit. However, the notion that this is a business’s sole responsibility and most guaranteed route to success may require some re-evaluation, according too Leah Eichler’s “Is doing good a sustainable business model“. This article can be found on The Globe and Mail, or by using this link:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/career-advice/life-at-work/good-vibes-for-social-responsibility/article14575293/

Friedman published his article in the 70’s, and although I do not deny the fact that profit is a business’s bottom line, Eichler’s article stresses that the modern world places much more emphasis on doing good and fulfilling social responsibilities. As a result, many present day businesses have been successful by incorporating strategies that fulfill social responsibility. These businesses actually make more profit than they would if they were to eliminate the costs of doing good. A perfect example would be the clothing company Ten Tree. Without their contribution to the environment, nothing would set them apart from the many other clothing brands, and as a result they would sell far less. Basically, the business model consisting of a strong emphasis on profit and social responsibility has much more opportunity to succeed than in the 70’s, due to the change in the general consumer’s values/morals.

Here is the link to the Dragons’ Den episode that Ten Tree debuted in. It is a perfect juxtaposition of the 70’s style of doing business and a more modern approach  due to the debate the Dragons’ enter concerning whether to support Ten Tree.

Ten Tree on Dragons’ Den:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oe8w998E00