Many developed nations have a Baby Boomer generation, a particularly large age group ranging from late 40s to early 50s.  While the bump in population is fine now, the problem lies in what happens after the Boomers retire.  With less people in the age bracket below the Boomers, the dependency ratio of countries like Canada will jump.

However, aging populations are even more damaging to countries like China, who, despite their tremendous economic growth, is still technically developing and relatively poor.
A recent blog on the National Public Radio, highlights a similar, albeit mirrored, situation. China’s infamous One-Child Policy, doesn’t lead to a large group of elderly Boomers, but rather a small group of young adults to care for them.

However, as a poorer nation, China does not have the safety net that most developed nations are able to provide their elderly with.  In an attempt to quell the looming problem, China has relaxed the One-Child Policy.

The situation in China shows how government intervention disrupts the natural equilibrium of populations and the market.

Image from : http://www.statcan.gc.ca/edu/power-pouvoir/ch1/examples-exemples/5214854-eng.htm

Everything has a trade-off.

It’s an unavoidable truth.

So while reading Megan Barnabe’s blog post on the positive effects of motivation, I couldn’t help but wonder how smaller, start-up companies would be able to afford keeping their employees happy.  Not that employees for new companies are treated badly, just that there’s an obvious price tag to the flexible hours and team bonding that motivate workers so well.  It’s all well and fine when big companies like Google and Walmart hold motivational seminars, but smaller companies would be hard pressed to find the extra room in their income statements for little more than a motivational pep talk.

That’s why it’s so much more impressive when companies like Zappos are able to not only build a fun-loving company culture but keep their heads afloat while they do it.

There isn’t much debate against the positive effects of a happy worker, but there shouldn’t be much surprise when most of the corporate world chooses to stick to the old, 8-hour day grindstone.  Sometimes, the benefit just doesn’t exceed costs.

What do you do when you’re 23 years old and have a $3bn company on your hands?

According to Snapchat co-founder and chief executive, Even Spiegel, you wait for it to be worth even more.

Recently, Snapchat rejected a $3bn buyout offer from Facebook (the most expensive acquisition Facebook would have ever made), on the grounds that other investors were valuing the company at an even higher $4bn.  Snapchat’s high valuation makes sense when you think about similar companies like Twitter and Pinterest.  These companies have only been growing in the past few quarters, most especially Twitter, whose IPO soared to $23bn.

Interesting how something that is decidedly a vitamin manages to overtake and decline an offer from Facebook, a company that has risen to pain-killer status in our society.

“We are not in the coffee business serving people, we are in the people business serving coffee.” – The Starbucks mission statement

It’s no secret that some people can’t function before their morning dose of caffeinated pep, and you’d have to have been living under a very large rock to not recognize the green and white lady that’s got everyone from teenagers to CEOs wrapped around her two tails.

Starbucks has become a veritable addiction, and boy have they capitalized on it.  From mugs to specially distilled agave nectar to the actual coffee, Starbucks has got it all.

But what’s different between the Starbucks of today and that of, say thirty years ago?

Two words; social responsibility.

That’s right, the guilt-indignation-action craze that is the green revolution has touched most every corporation, and Starbucks is no exception.  Take a stroll through their official site, and you see an entire section devoted to environmental action plans and ethically sourced coffee beans.  Like many corporations, Starbucks understands what’s important, namely, what their customers see as important.

There’s no real way to know if Starbucks is doing this out of the goodness of their caffeinated hearts or just as a PR stunt, but in the end, does it really matter?

Developing nations are still getting more sustainable treatment, disposable cups are still slowly being phased out, and the greater good is still achieved.  What’s important here is the precedent Starbucks has set for every other coffee house that wants to compete.

After all, if the big, greedy, corporation cares about the environment, so should everyone else, right?

The aforementioned pages:

 http://www.starbucks.ca/responsibility/environment

http://www.starbucks.ca/responsibility/sourcing