Even if the United Nations was fully funded, I believe that we cannot leave the enormous responsibility for one single organization to take care of.  The UN is incapable of handling all the social issues that arise globally.  Moreover, even if the UN had the power to handle every social issue that arises in different countries around the world, they would not be able to handle issues properly because people have different values and priorities depending on where they live due to cultural and social differences.

Let’s pretend that the UN can somehow manage the issues around the world just fine.  What happens when UN becomes underfunded in the future, retreats from certain countries, or shift their focus to somewhere else they see are in greater need?  The places that the UN leave behind would be devastates and the whole system would collapse.  In my opinion, this is worst than the UN not being fully funded and wiping out all the Arc and social enterprises.

Even if the UN was fully funded, we still need the Arc and social enterprises because they can target area that the UN cannot: the local aspect of things.  On the other hand, the UN can focus on the bigger picture, which Arc and social enterprises cannot.

Minimum wage is something that always intrigued me – its effect completely goes against its intent and yet it’s still in place.  When I came across Taha Bhopalwala‘s article about minimum wage, I was thrilled!

Taha talks about the increasingly common act of labor unions abusing their power to target specific single firms, forcing them to pay their employees more.  I personally think that an unreasonably high minimum wage always does more harm than good.  Instead of accepting the loss of profit caused by the increasing minimum wage for their employees, companies are now replacing human labor with machines where possible.  I think that this the the only way that companies can remain their competitive edge in the long-run.

The push from labor unions to drive up the minimum wage is only pressuring companies to replace employees with capital at a higher pace.  If minimum wage was $8/hr, a bank might hire 10 tellers.  If minimum wage was $15/hr, the bank is being forced to purchase more ATM’s in order to remain profitable in the long-run.

I believe that it is inevitable that many employees doing low-skilled jobs are going to be replaced with advancing technology.  How would the global economy remain stable and keep unemployment rates low in order to adapt the the new way of business?  This is a question currently without a perfect answer.  I think it would be wise to keep the minimum wages down in order to buy us time to come up with an ideal solution.

When new drugs are created, it has to be evaluated by the advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration before it can be launched into the market.  The administration often have external experts, usually consisting of academic physicians, to help render unbiased and scientific judgements.  However, many of those physicians have financial interest in the drug companies that they are evaluating the drugs for.  In “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,” Friedman states that, “unanimity is not always feasible,” – an unfortunate yet true statement.  In “Doctor’s Magical Thinking About Conflict of Interest,” doctors who are evaluating a drug that is released by a company that he or she is financially interested in, the approval rate of that drug increases from 52% to 84%.

I think that the conflict of interest in business has always and will always been a problem.  Where is the right balance between self interest and social interest?  Suppose there’s a new drug that can bring the company, and therefore, the doctors who have invested in the company, tons of money.  Some of the doctors evaluating the drug would be more inclined to approve the drug, regardless of the quality of the drug itself.  Monetary incentive can be a scary thing.  I think this not only impacts those in the company, but all the people that will purchase the underqualified drugs that got approved by biased doctors.  Even the doctors themselves and possibly their own family might get affected.  Sure, they may be able to avoid using whatever drug that they themselves evaluated, but there are other physicians that have done the same.  This creates a vicious cycle of unreliable drugs and possible deaths.  I think that doctors who have monetary ties with the company should be banned from evaluating those companies’ drugs.

The official retirement age is being pushed back every year.  The amount of people over the age of 65 in the workforce increases every year.  What’s wrong with this picture?  There were several issues brought up in “Work until you drop” (source: The Economist) about the aging workforce.  The first issue brought up was the difficulty level of affording social benefits for an aging population.  One of the possible solutions is to increase funding for the healthcare segment through taxes.  I don’t think this solution is ideal because a large portion of Canadian’s taxes currently go towards the healthcare, and we already have the 11th highest tax in the world.  Another problem is that the pensions that most companies currently offer are pale in comparison to how much they were a decade ago in real value.  Moreover, people cannot afford to stop working even when they reach the official retirement age in their country because the age at which the government starts paying pension gradually delay.

Can you think of any other solutions for the aging population?  I think a possible solution would be to increase the pay for the nursing industry.  This would create an incentive for people to choose the nursing industry over other career choices.  Unfortunately, another problem might arise from this decision – where would the money come from?  Perhaps we can lower the standard of our social benefits and use that money in pensions instead.  This way the government would be encouraging people to work hard and then be able to provide a safety net when they retire.  There is no perfect solution, but I believe that the governments around the world need to take action in order to reassure that the aging population is sustainable.

^Professional cuddler (Samantha Hess) cuddling with Portland musician KaiKani

While Samantha Hess, was surfing on YouTube and came across this video, a spark of genius ignited and spreaded like a wildfire.  In the video, a guy was holding up a “free hugs” sign, and then there was a prankster, who held up a sign saying “deluxe hugs $2”, and ended up getting more hugs than the guy giving out free hugs.  Samantha then started a business – she charges people money for non-sexual cuddles.  Samantha’s site “Cuddle Up to Me” clearly states her rates, what’s appropriate, and where her services are available at.

Samantha’s business definitely targets a unique niche market.  I think the idea of entering an untouched market that no one has discovered is a brilliant brave act!  An untouched market either means that there is no potential in that market or no one has discovered it yet.  According to the article on Business Insider, Samantha now makes around $7,000USD a month, which she is quite content with.  She inspires me!  As an individual, she is now living comfortably while doing what she is passionate about, she believes that “everybody should have a way to reach out and feel comfortable with that.”  As a business, “Cuddle Up to me” is thriving as if I were to rate it, it would receive an extremely high score in the triple bottom line as her customers have a high level of satisfaction , it’s local – environmentally friendly, and her income is higher than another job that she has done before.  

When I read on Business in Vancouver that Save-on-Meats, a local diner and butcher shop located in Gastown of Vancouver, hires people who usually have barriers to entry to workforce, I was excited!  Upon further research, I noticed that they also provide meals for the Downtown Eastside Residents Association at a very low price.

Mark Brand, the owner of Save-on-Meats, is currently facing several lawsuits for late payments of invoices.  I felt conflicted about this – a part of me feels like the government should be subsidizing part of Mark’s costs for hiring people with special needs, but another part of me feels like it’s his fault for not running his business efficiently.  If the government did subsidize Save-on-Meats, would it be an unfair advantage for all the diners and butcher shops in the area?  Is it morally acceptable for the government to watch Save-on-Meats, possibly in the future, fail and stop providing jobs for the people who otherwise wouldn’t be able to get jobs?  These are difficult questions that need to be asked; I personally believe that the government should support and encourage social enterprise businesses, as they sometimes encounter more challenges when compared to businesses that are solely after profits.  There’s a fine line for how much to subsidize or in what ways the government should before it becomes unfair, and where that line should be drawn is a big question.

While I was browsing external blogs from other classes, Raza Razi‘s blog “Marketing – How Effective Can an Idea Be” caught my eye.  In his blog, he praised the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge due to its low cost and effective marketing strategy.

Smaller corporations often have trouble competing with the larger-scale corporations, but I agree with Raza that there are inexpensive ways for ideas to stand out and gain a point of difference in the consumers’ mind.  There are millions of products on the market, so product differentiation isn’t always possible.  What the companies can do is to market the same product in a way that it has never been thought of before in order to achieve a sort of illusion of product differentiation.  An effective advertisement can trick consumers into thinking that they “need” the product that the company is selling.  Unfortunately, and fortunately, low-budget and unique marketing ideas are often a hit or miss.

In the case of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, a simple idea raised over 100 million dollars!  I think that there is an abundance of clever marketing ideas in this day and age, but it takes more than that to succeed.  Good timing, a clear understanding of the market, endorsements from the right people, and a bit of luck are all essential ingredients for an marketing strategy to be effective.

While I was reading through my fellow classmates’ blogs, the word “Blackberry” in Iris Gu’s blog title stood out to me.  Blackberry used to be one of the world’s leading cell phone brands, but in the recent years, their sales plummeted.

Iris wrote in her blog that Blackberry cannot make a come back with the keyboard market because it cannot compete with the touchscreen market since they’re competing for the same market share.  I personally disagree as I see the users that prefer a physical keyboard on their phones are in different customer segment than those who prefer touchscreens.  I understand that most current smart phone users prefer touchscreens, but if Blackberry can shift their goal of competing with Apple, Samsung, and other cell phone companies, and into targeting consumers who are not satisfied with a touchscreen, then it has a chance of reviving its sales.

It is almost impossible for Blackberry to even attempt to break into already established leading cell phone companies’ customers base because it cannot compete with the brand recognition and customer loyalty that the other companies have already established.  However, if they can take over those who prefer physical keyboards over touchscreens, and then slowly build up their reputation again, then they have a chance of making a come back.

Several articles point out that a recent study by the American Association of Poison Control Centers shows that there were thousands of calls made due to children misusing cleaning products.  Among them, laundry detergent pods are causing more than 700 children ending up in the hospital every year.

Laundry detergent pods are squishy and often bright in color, which means that children often mistake them as toys.  I think the company manufacturing these laundry pods are not responsible for the consumers misusing their products.  The parents are the ones responsible for keeping their children away from eating or playing with the laundry pods.  Although I don’t think that the company is responsible, I should point out and praise them for repacking their products several times, attempting to make it clear that their products need to be kept away from children.  Every time they repackage their products, the number of children injured by the products decrease slightly for a little while.

The thing that shocked me the most in the article was that there was a parent that has mistaken a laundry pod as a chewing toy and fed it to her daughter.  The newborn was severely injured and had to be hospitalized.  Do you think this is the company’s fault?

Taseko Mines Limited is a mining company located in Vancouver, Canada.  It operates the second largest open-pit mine in Canada and has been planning to use Fish Lake as a tailings pond for the New Prosperity Mine.  It first proposed in 2010, proposed for the second time in 2012, and again in late 2013.  All three proposals were rejected by the Ministry of Environment due to evidence suggesting that the mine would cause permanent environmental damage and there was also strong opposition from the members of the Tsilhqot’in in First Nation.  To the Tsilhqot’in, the Fish Lake is sacred and the development will restrict access to “a place of spiritual importance.”

This article on CBC News inspired me to wonder, “where does the balance lie between profitability and sustainability?”  In the past few decades, companies located in North America have became more conscious of environmental consequences of their companies’ decisions.   Several countries have put in carbon tax, carbon credit, and other taxes and fees to limit the amount of pollution each company is allowed to produce.  Personally I think theses implements are brilliant, as it makes companies with high carbon output come up with another way to manufacture their products in a more eco-friendly manner in order to avoid heavy taxes.  This means that they can use materials that are biodegradable, recycle at earlier stage of productions, or come up with an innovative way of producing their products altogether.  However, many companies take advantage or the scarcity of the carbon credits and sell them to commercial and individual customers for profit.

Is it ethical for the companies to trade the carbon credits?  Are the governments indirectly discouraging companies from making an effort to reduce the amount of pollution they produce?  I think there is a limited amount that the government alone can do, and in order for businesses around the world to be environmentally sustainable, the CEO’s have to take initiative and really believe in the importance of making sustainability profitable.