Senator Mitchell, Redux
-
Senator Mitchell (DFL Woodbury) was arraigned for First Degree Burglary in
Becker County yesterday. I’ll cop to the fact that I honestly hope someone
who h...
18 hours ago
13 comments:
gov't accounting? estrange.
i'd just leave it at "bottom line driven"...
we're trying to take a step off of the "bottom line driven" escalator...for an architectural firm, that's a very dangerous place to be, imo.
Shawn, no. The factor which changed was the tax law.
Yes, companies can be greedy, but the root cause here is regulation, not whether people wanted an extra buck.
...chicken and egg.
if you care primarily about profit, you care primarily about paying less taxes: bottom line.
we're still profit driven; profit trumps beauty/happiness/worker satisfaction.
granted, this is a capitalist society, so profit MUST be at or near the top, or we do not survive as a business.
yes; it does suck that the regulation changed...but there is still an incentive for an individual corporation to say "i'm not going to conform with that, even if it will save me $, because my employee's happiness is more valuable to me".
Wrong again, Shawn. Beauty and such are driven by profit. If you doubt this, look at benefits packages for employees and the visitor lobby at most companies--some of them even hire an architect or two to make it look especially good. Companies will spend on beauty when it benefits their bottom line, and it does.
What's going on here is not an issue of profit, but rather of government regulating the profit out of long term investments. So the same motive goes to the short term--to our loss.
hmm. guess i'm not quite following. still seems like some things are outside the bounds of quantifiable 'profit' (even if they may be DIRECTED toward greater profit, like your mentioned entryways). so, if it's not precisely quantifiable, then you are making a value judgement: "is this worth more than that to us as a company" so...if i, as an owner, can say "well...i think making my building really beautiful will make me money, but i can't really tell you exactly how MUCH money it's going to make me, i'm going to go until i feel comfortable with the amount of expenditure, rather than having a 'set $ amount' to spend", then i believe that i'm trying to be more beauty focused than profit focused, though profit is not out of the equation.
perhaps a better way of saying it is to allow the same 'beauty quotient' to enter into the decisions of whether or not to form 'cubicleworlds' that are present in entryway designs: in the entry, you are making the client happier/more comfortable with your business, and thereby increasing profit...why not do the same thing with cubicleville?
"...why not do the same thing with cubicleville? "
Supply & demand again. The regulation has needlessly increased the cost of the nicer option--hence less of it will be purchased, just like any other normal good.
Put differently, if I impose a luxury tax on vehicles > $40k, I should expect that more Chevrolets and Hondas will be sold, and fewer Bimmers, no?
and yet, employee happiness would increase bottom line, but it's not as tangible.
ya know...nevermind...i don't think i understand enough economics to really have this discussion...
may we rescind my comments, and allow me to say:
"hmm. interesting."
my impetus:
my office.
The Evans Group. Go there, then click on 'profile', then, on the left, adjacent to 'firm', click on "architects biosphere".
No need to understand advanced economics here, Shawn. Rather, more of a need to go back to 101 and review basic supply and demand--you did this while registering for your wedding. At X price, you were willing to consider AllClad--but it was at Y price, so you went with Emeril's brand or whatever.
In a nutshell; when the price goes up, you'll buy less. Steak at $3/lb? I'll eat some! Steak at $15/lb? Looks like chili tonight.
well...i understand, or think i do, the simplest supply/demand curve ideas...but it seems that other, less measurable, factors play into the equation (exhibit a: our office...that's not STRICTLY for profit, because it's so intangible, and we CERTAINLY use it as a sales/marketing pitch...but how do you measure that from a simple supply/demand standpoint? did the extra cash we spent on making the office as beautiful as it is translate strictly into greater sales? well...yes...but by what factor? how much does increased employee comfort and pride in their office increase productivity and longevity with a firm?). i mean: doesn't employee happiness increase productivity/increase bottom line? and...i realize that our office is MORE possible because we're a completely private company, which up until a few years ago, did not even have a board of directors or shareholders (so everything could be done on the whim of the owner, because "his name is on the door"). public companies, of course, would have had to be accountable to their shareholders, who might have said "why the hell are you spending so much $$ on something like this??".
see...THAT'S where it seems that it's above the simplest supply/demand, and that's where i should be getting off the discussion train, but i...just....cant....help....it.... :)
Glad to have you here!
Regarding S&D, it's not something that people use to mathematically quantify factors until you get to econometrics, and it's certainly true that aesthetic factors are included in the principle of the thing. (which makes econometrics extraordinarily hazardous)
So one can apply the principle without measuring it with a micrometer. Your boss might have thought "it's only $X, and I just happen to like this kind of workspace." That's valid--as would be the response "cost just increased by $Y, should we reconsider."
ok...and, then...you're saying that BECAUSE of the tax regulations, bosses are *less* likely to say "i like this kind of workspace, and so will my employees", because they've got to pay more money to HAVE that kind of workspace--it's not just the cost of *doing* it that way, but the increased tax cost of *keeping* it that way, year after year.
so this extra weight on the other side of the scales, undully added on because of the government, makes it a relatively unbearable decision to supercede your bottom line and make a "beautiful" space?
if that's the case, i now see how the gov't is the "root" (if it's possible to ever have a "root", considering that nothing is *really* linear) cause here.
Bingo, Shawn!
Post a Comment