Finance Question Answered

Finance Question Answered

Answered by:  Arin Goldman

Vivian asked the question:

“Does one have to be retired to remove money without penalty from an IRA, 401K, 403B etc at age 59 1/2?”

Arin’s answer to Vivian’s question:

Once you reach age 59 1/2 you can start taking money out of your IRA or 401K in any amount you want. Keep in mind that you’ll owe tax on the amount you withdraw from a traditional account.  The amount that you withdraw will be added to your other income and you will pay taxes based on your total income. With a Roth, there’s no tax at all provided your account has been open at least five years and you’re 59 1/2.  Most advisors recommend that you hold off witdrawing funds from your retirement accounts until you’ve actually retired because at that point you will presumably be paying taxes at a lower rate and because you probably will need your retirement funds to last as long as possible. I recommend that you check with your financial advisor and/or accountant to make sure that withdrawing funds makes sense for you.

If you have additional questions, or have a comment to make about finance, please respond in the box below!

To receive ImagineAge updates,

WHEN I AM 64 WILL I BE HAPPY?

When I am 64 will I be happy? (Part 1)

BLOGGER:  PAUL GRIFFIN, PHD

In 1967, one of the first major reviews of happiness appeared in the psychological literature. It might seem hard to imagine now with new books on happiness popping up every month or so, but at that time happiness was of relatively little academic concern within psychology. Therefore, this article by a psychologist named Warner Wilson was quite valuable because it attempted to review and synthesize all of the studies on happiness up to that point and draw some conclusions based on this research. Among such conclusions was one that still seems persuasive to many: when it comes to happiness, better to be young.

Each year I teach an undergraduate class on the psychology of happiness. With the exception of a student or two, most of these students are in their late teens to early 20s. When I ask them to hypothetically compare the happiness levels of 20 and 30 year olds with those who are in their 60s and 70s, usually more than 60% pick the younger group (I suspect the numbers would be even be larger if it weren’t for the fact that by asking the question I am priming them to go against their instinct). Perhaps unless you are over 50 it is hard to think that being older means being happier. Why should it? After all, doesn’t getting older mean getting worse? Yes, it is true that the advent of modern medicine along with the rise of gerontology and education about aging has led to some shift in the way we think of older adulthood. However, while today’s 60 was yesterday’s 50, it doesn’t mean that common negative stereotypes of aging still do not persist. As one student asked, what is so great about losing cognitive skills, physical mobility, freedom, and social stature? Or as another student more bluntly put it, “not getting it up” can hardly make for a happy life.

Young adults’ mistaken perceptions of what awaits them in the coming years might lead to false conclusions about happiness in later life, but I think that there is more to it than that. In fact, while often grossly overstated by some, the aging process does involve decline in a number of areas, including certain cognitive skills and especially in a variety of physical abilities. And although there is a certain level of esteem and respect that is garnered as one ages (and, one hopes, progresses), our society still places great value on youth and the associated beauty, vigor, and excitement that comes with it. Regardless of the myths, in many respects, getting older can be hard. The often intuitive belief that being young means being happier makes perfect sense to me.

Let me reiterate, though, that Wilson’s early conclusion about happiness and aging were not based on intuition. This argument was based the existing research at the time. So this would be a pretty depressing post if I told you that this was the end of the story, that four decades later we have come to the scientific conclusion that it sucks to be old. In fact, something interesting happened—well, interesting enough, that I went on to do my doctoral dissertation on the subject (which according to some friends, hardly makes it interesting). After Wilson’s review, gradually more studies began to be conducted on the subject. The reason for this was twofold: greater attention to issues surrounding the aging process and more study devoted by psychologists, as well as related fields, to the question of happiness itself (I will have more to say about that in a later post). And not just more research, but better research. With each ensuing decade, the instruments being used were more precise and the populations being studied were larger and more diverse.

So now the interesting part. Through the 1970s and early 1980, a number of different studies did not find evidence that the young were happy than the old. In fact, by 1984 in the second major review of the literature, Ed Diener—one of the most prominent researchers in the area of happiness—had to amend Wilson’s original conclusion about age and happiness. At this point the research indicated there was no significant relationship between the two variables. In other words, age played little role in predicting happiness. Although there were certainly differences across individuals, there didn’t seem to be enough evidence to suggest that happiness varied in any predictable ways across age groups. If that still isn’t interesting enough for you, it gets better. After this review by Diener, there continued to be a significant amount of research on the question of happiness and aging. Again, this was due to the continued interest in gerontological issues and in an explosion of research on predictors of happiness. What began to emerge was a picture that surprised by many. So much so, that it was even identified as a “paradox.” Why a paradox? Because not only did it contradict Wilson’s earlier assertions, it went against the intuitive belief I spoke about before, the idea that aging and its associated rigors should lead to greater levels of unhappiness. These newer research suggested the exact opposite: there, indeed, was a relationship between age and happiness, and that relationship was positive. Getting older meant getting happier.

Let me give you one example of a study that changed the tide. In 1998, a young researcher named Dan Mroczek (along with his student Chris Kolarz) published research from a national database known as the MIDUS study. There had already been research suggesting that older people might be happier than the young, but perhaps due to the large sample size (over 2,500 people) and the sophisticated level of analysis, this study received considerable national attention. These researchers found that when comparing a group that ranged from their mid 20s to mid 70s, general levels of positive emotions increased across age groups while negative affect declined. Soon after they published their results, these findings appeared in a host of news outlets (it even provided material for Jay Leno’s opening monologue on the Tonight Show). In many respects, this study seemed to be the perfect conclusion to a decade of research on “positive aging.” For some time a number of researchers had been focused on the issue of understanding emotional changes across the lifespan, and Mrozcek’s study seemed to confirm many of their own positive conclusions about emotional well-being in late life.

So there you have it: when you are 64 you will be happy. Well, not exactly. Of course, no one study can ever then be used to predict an individual’s life. I hope to say more about individual differences—and factors related to such differences—at a later date. But let’s return to the general question of age differences and happiness. Does research substantiate the claim that aging more often leads to a rise in levels of happiness? A decade since Mroczek’s findings, there have been a number of studies that seem to confirm their results. At least when it comes to emotional well-being, these findings paint an optimistic picture of later life. Although it might be hard for someone younger than middle-age to imagine it might be so, a considerable amount of research suggests that happiness is not the provenance of the young.

Of course, some of you might not be surprised by this. In some cases, it might be because you are young and you are thinking, well it has to get better than this. Or maybe you are currently in middle-age or older and can tell me first-hand about this effect (as many of my older graduates have done). Or perhaps, even, you have read about these findings somewhere. Every several years you will find news outlets reporting the “surprising” finding that older individuals are happy! (The fact that this relatively old news is still newsworthy tells us how hard it is for us to believe it is true.) More than ever before—most especially in academic circles—there is an optimistic picture of life in later adulthood. In fact, it is not uncommon to hear the assertion that you get happier as you get older.

Now here is the part where I say that everything I have told you thus far is wrong, and you get annoyed. Well, not exactly. In fact, I do believe that there is considerable evidence to suggest that for many, happiness does increase across the lifespan. I certainly convinced that the notion that you are happiest in young adulthood is false. However, it seems to me that research over the last few years indicates that we might have painted an overly optimistic picture of such changes. In recent years researchers have sought to dissuade many from the stereotypical belief of the cantankerous old man as emblematic of the elderly population, and then replace him with the glossed over picture of a man swimming laps in the pool. There is good reason for this, and I find nothing wrong with our attempt to shift negative perceptions of aging. But what is missing is a more nuanced picture of an expanding cohort of elderly individuals. Although the media loves a happy ending, in my next post I would to discuss why we might needs to shift some of these assumptions about happiness once again. It might be true that you are likely to be happy when you are 64 and 74, but things seem more complicated when we start looking beyond to an elderly population that represents the fastest growing age cohort in the U.S.

For more information about Dr. Griffin, click his photo below:

If you’d like to receive ImagineAge Updates as new blogs are posted, enter your email address in the “subscribe” box on the upper left side of the screen.  Your email will NOT be sold!

To become a Fan of ImagineAge on Facebook, click here!

To join the ImagineAge Group on Facebook, click here!

WHY I LIKE WORKING WITH OLDER PEOPLE

Why I like Working with Older People

BLOGGER: LAURA TRAYOR

My boss is a 74-year old woman who is by far, the best manager I’ve had in my 20+ year career.  She’s curious, energetic, charismatic and above all, connected.  She’s the antithesis to prevailing aging stereotypes that depict older workers as those who tire too easily, get sick often, or are just too rigid or slow for a fast paced workplace.

Not only is my boss an older person, but so too are most of the people I routinely work with.  They’re all 50+ and many are in their 60s and 70s.  I consider myself fortunate to work with such an interesting and inspiring group of people, which is why I’m always perplexed when I read about the difficulties older people face when looking for a new job or re-entering the workforce.  I recently came across a press release from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that featured findings from a public hearing on developments (widespread layoffs, threats to benefits) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  Expert panelists testified about “conscious and unconscious aging stereotypes” that cause employers to undervalue the contributions older workers make to their organization.  Moreover, because of these stereotypes, older workers are targeted disproportionately during workforce reductions. (http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-15-09.html.).

I think hiring and HR managers have it all wrong.  There’s a lot to be said for the experience that comes from lives lived.  Like the following:

• High powered connections – my boss can pick up the phone and reach government officials or executives at leading health care organizations;
• Appreciation that time is an important commodity that should not be wasted in meaningless meetings;
• Willingness to take risks because they can handle rejection and are past caring about what other people think (did you know over the past decade or so, the highest rate of entrepreneurial activity is among those 50+?  Check out this report: http://www.globalaging.org/health/us/2009/entrepreneurship.pdf);
• Ability to follow through on their word – older workers are incredibly dependable;
• Perspective – will the world really come to an end if you miss a deadline?

So my advice to any hiring managers reading this blog is to think twice the next time a “seasoned” resume or older job applicant comes your way.  Cast aside those ageist stereotypes and focus instead on the valuable skills and experience this person can bring to both your organization – and your life.

Laura Traynor is a project manager with The Transition Network, a growing non-profit organization for women 50+.  Together with her boss, Charlotte Frank, she manages the Caring Collaborative, an innovative program of strategic assistance offered by friends and neighbors to help women effectively handle emerging health issues ( www.ttncaringcollaborative.org ).

To find out more about Laura and the ImagineAge bloggers, click her photo.

To receive updates when new blogs are posted, enter your email in the “subscribe” box on the upper left side of the screen.  Your email will NOT be sold!

Identity Card

Identity Card

BLOGGER:  ARIN GOLDMAN

When I got my first business card I felt like I had arrived.  Simple black print on a white card with little more than my name and extension, the classic Salomon Brothers starter card.  There wasn’t even a title on that first card since in those days, before title proliferation, Salomon Brothers designated rank by differentiating the quality of the paper and the color of the type, rather than by including a title.  My basic black and white card was low end but that was okay, all that mattered to me was that I finally had a job and a title even if it wasn’t explicitly noted on my card.  I was on my way.  Over the years my titles changed,  the company merged and changed its name a few times and my card became congested with all kinds of additional data. Fax numbers, email addresses, cell phone numbers, logos.  My business card had become my identity, a way to share information in multiple settings both business and social.  And I had cards with me at all times.  I was so accustomed to exchanging cards that I accidentally gave one to a mugger when he asked for my credit cards.  Fortunately, he never called and I saved myself the inconvenience of having to cancel stolen cards.  I kept at least one of all of my cards, each one signifying a different phase of my both my professional career and my life.  When I left banking someone told me that it was okay to use my old cards during my trarnsition so I did, but after awhile it seemed a little desperate to introduce myself as Arin Goldman, former Managing Director so I finally gave up using my last set of business cards, relegating them to the drawer with all of the other dated cards.  There I was cardless, a woman without an identity.  For a long time I carried index cards so I would have a piece of paper to write my name, number and email address on if necessary.  Once when asked for my “card” by someone with whom I really wanted to exchange contact information I awkwardly ran into my apartment building and borrowed a scrap of paper from my doorman, quickly scrawling my number and email address on a torn piece of menu. More than twenty years as a professional and the best I could do was share information via a ripped piece of menu. Still despite that indignity I continued to remain cardless in part because I couldn’t figure out what I would put on a card and in part because I remained embarassed that I didn’t have a title or company name to include.  Even though I had become increasingly content outside of a corporate setting, I couldn’t come to terms with the whole card thing and so I remained a person without an identity.

Finally, a few weeks ago I decided to take control. I realized that tying my identity to a company was ridiculous.  In these uncertain economic times, with companies tossing off loyal employees right and left, going out of business, selling themselves and giving up names and logos, why shouldn’t I have my own card. Given the current economic and employment enviroment it no longer seems necessary to have a company logo or a title.  My new cards are simple, they include my name, cell phone and email address.  And www.imagineage.com of course!

To find out more about Arin, click on her photo

To receive ImagineAge Updates, enter your email in the “subscribe” box on the left side of the screen.  Your email will NOT be sold!!!

To become a Fan of ImagineAge on Facebook, click here!

To join the ImagineAge Group on Facebook, click here!

ABUSE AND AGISM IN THE WORKPLACE

ABUSE AND AGISM IN THE WORKPLACE

BLOGGER: MEBANE POWELL, MSW

When you hear the term abuse, what pops into your mind?  I bet that if I could talk to you directly, you would most likely think of abuse as something that occurs at home between partners, against children and against the elderly.  Similarly, if I were to ask you do we live in an ageist society, I would wager that most of you would say yes.  However, I would wager that few of you reading this thought about abuse and ageism as occurring in the workplace.  I recently participated on a panel at the United Nations NonGovernmental Organization Committee on Aging meeting and I’d like to share some of my speaking points.

It is well recognized that the aging population is facing enormous challenges in the workplace, during economic times that some would call a perfect storm for ageism and abuse in the workplace.  In his book The Longevity Revolution: The Benefits and Challenges of Living a Long Life, Dr. Robert N. Butler notes that “Ageism is a form of systemic stereotyping and discrimination against people simply because they are old” (p.40).   However, mistreatment of older people is often not recognized as abuse when it occurs in the workplace.

The Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing does address the rights of older people to serve as productive citizens and have their skills and abilities recognized and appreciated in both paid and civic engagement long after they turn 60 years of age. I urge everyone who is reading this to think of the issue around ageism and abuse in the workplace as a human rights issue.   

I am often reminded of a quote regarding who and/or what determines which social problems should be addressed by policy; the quote is as follows: “Social ethics and political forces are intimately tied together, especially in terms of WHICH social problems to address, HOW to address them, and weather or not the disproportionate risk certain groups face is of paramount concern in the world of program implementation and practice” [Social Policy Analysis and Practice – Meenaghan, Kilty, Mcnutt]. 

Fortunately, the formation of policy to address the issue of bullying in the workplace as a social problem is occurring, and gaining strength.  However, we (professionals, practitioners, advocates, and students) all have a responsibility to be aware of the need for the creation of policy that includes workplace education, organizational behavior, and the interplay between the individual and the organizational environment. 

Research into the issue is needed in order to support and provide evidence for policy advocates.  As I’ve told my students, research can be likened to creating a great symphony.  Each section is in charge of carrying out their piece of music, each section supports the others, and each section has a chance to take the lead.  In other words, research should not happen in a vacuum, all professions should work with each other, psychologists, social workers, economist, and public health professionals, must all play their part. 

That being said, we are at a time where the coming together of professions is of utmost importance in order to answer the question: “What are the next logical and most productive steps research can take to provide outcomes and input into policy implementation and practice?”

In a presentation about psychological abuse in the workplace by Dr. Shah, two key points were raised.  First, a legal definition of bullying would help employers develop policies – rules and regulations alone will not solve the problem.  Second, In order to provide an effective strategy for combating ageism and abuse, we must also include education, conflict resolution mechanisms, and a commitment from employers that is based on good business practice.

However, there are also other issues to consider in terms of future research and policy formation that I would like to share with you, they are:

o   The need for a clear and concise definition of abuse in the workplace in order for researchers and organizations to address the issue and to be able to measure the impact of policy implementation and outcomes (Does the implementation of a policy decrease the abuse?).

o   What types of abuse are occurring in the workplace and how are workers defining abuse in the workplace?  Is there consistency in the definition across industries?  More importantly, how do we begin to measure ageism and abuse in the workplace? 

o   In terms of organizations, are there certain organizational structures that promote or prevent abuse and ageism from occurring? Or is it the culture of the organization that plays a larger role and is the key to prevention and/or promotion of abuse and ageism? 

o   Have prior discrimination policies been evaluated regarding the ability to implement policies within organizations?  What were the challenges to implementing these policies and how can we use this information to increase the success of implementing policies regarding ageism and abuse in the workplace?

In conclusion, I want to remind everyone when investigating the issue around ageism and abuse in the workplace, to use the international human rights frame to guide us in future policy, practice, and research.   Thank you! 

What are your thoughts?

Mebane E. Powell is a doctoral student at Fordham University, Graduate School of Social Service.  She has a Masters Degree in Social Work with a concentration in Research from Fordham University and a BA in Psychology from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.  Ms. Powell has worked in the field of psychosocial research since 2000, focusing on elder abuse as well as vision loss in the aging population. 

To receive ImagineAge updates, enter your email in the “subscribe” box on the upper left side of the screen.  Your email will NOT be sold!  

IMAGINE THE POSSIBILITIES

Imagine the Possibilities

BLOGGER:  LAURA TRAYNOR

Starting next year, the first wave of America’s 80 million baby boomers will turn 65.  Think about it, 80 million new customers for the field/industry of aging.  That’s a huge number!  And this is a major demographic revolution, not some fly by night trend.  Since there’s a big age range between the youngest and oldest baby boomers (19 years), this will be a period of sustained change.  If you like to be inventive or entrepreneurial (and I do), here’s an expansive field that is wide open!

I work in the field of aging and think it’s one of the most exiting places to be.  To me, aging is a new frontier – for the first time in our country’s history, more people are living longer than ever before.  Older people today are our pioneers – forging ahead into unchartered territories and creating a host of opportunities along the way.  I’m eager to forge ahead and excited to help shape the future of the industry, for with luck we shall all reach this demographic one day!

Think about it.  How will baby boomers live?  Where will they live?  What will they wear?  What will they consume?  What new products will they demand?  Will they have more time in the work force or more leisure?  One thing’s for sure – baby boomers will be a different generation of older adults, requiring new and different approaches to living out their extra years.  There will be a huge demand for new products and services.  New jobs that have yet to be imagined.  And new policies that address the challenges and opportunities brought about by a rapidly aging society. 

I’m currently working as a program manager for a growing non-profit organization that is looking at a big policy issue – how are we going to care for this growing population of older adults?  Right now, there’s a critical shortage of professional caregivers and families are fragmented and/or stretched to the max.  This project, developed by members of The Transition Network (www.thetransitionnetwork.org), taps into the human and social capital that resides within their community to help each other through temporary periods of illness and disability.  It increases the pool of caregivers by extending this role to informal communities – where networks and friendships are already in place.  

This is just one example of some of the exciting work that’s going on in aging.  Unfortunately, when it comes to aging, you’re likely to hear more gloom and doom than then its upside.  That’s why I got involved in ImagineAge.  To add a bit of imagination, sparkle and pizzazz to a field that has a bad rap.  If you have specific questions or topics you want covered, please let me know.  If you are in school and curious what options the field might hold for you, send me a note!  If your job on Wall Street disappeared before you even started it, I’d be happy to tell you about some of the exciting options in the field of aging.

In upcoming blogs, I’ll be sharing some fresh approaches, innovative ideas and interesting people that I hope will inspire you to imagine a new age!  Stay tuned……

In the meantime, if you have anything you’d like to share, leave a comment.  We’d love to know about ideas you have! 

 To find out more about Laura, click here to read her bio.

To receive updates, enter your email in the “subscribe” box on the left side of the screen.  Your email will NOT be sold!!!

A FIGHT, A BEAUTY AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH

A Fight, A Beauty, and Freedom of Speech        

BLOGGER:  BEN PIERSON                       

As the saying goes, “Capitalism is the worst of all possible economic systems, with the exception of all the others”.  Sometimes I feel that about the folks within the US as well.  Sometimes I lie awake in shame of what our founders might say to us.  In a country created for and founded on freedom of speech and freedom of choice, it seems too often these are lost.

I often feel that many people use their freedom of speech as a forum to take away another’s free speech; their freedom of choice to take away another’s freedom to choose.

Kyle Maynard

The above photo is neither a joke nor a prank.  Kyle Maynard (right) fought Brian Frye (left), on Saturday, April 11, in an Alabama arena, in a Mixed Martial Arts match (meaning you can kick, punch, use submission holds… almost anything).  If you’re never heard of Kyle before, here’s his brief bio:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Maynard

So Kyle decided he wanted to fight an MMA match.  Ignoring his disorder (congenital amputation), this would seem a logical step for someone of his wrestling background, strength and attitude.  If you need an additional primer on his attitude, look no further than the company he is president of, noexcuses.com.  But given his disorder, of course controversy ensued.

Everyone involved has been intensely criticized.  Pre-fight, message boards were 90% filled with posts calling Kyle a “f***ing idiot”.  Kyle’s opponent got labeled with greater cruelty.  One poster even went so far as to say Brian punching Kyle would be equivalent to a “guy beating a defenseless puppy”.  While I think the verbal attacks are pretty ignorant and a bit cruel, hey, fine with me.  What I don’t like is when people try to take his choice away. 

There were people calling on the State of Alabama to stop the fight.  There were people calling on the sport of MMA to intervene.  Even worse, the man Kyle convinced to set up this fight, David Oblas, – a friend of Kyle’s for many years – has dealt with criticisms up to and including veiled death threats.

I don’t know Kyle personally.  He could be the nicest guy in the world or the meanest.  I don’t really care either.  But it distresses me to see people trying to deny him the freedom of choice.  Who does Kyle hurt by fighting?  Certainly not you, anonymous poster from Cleveland.  Certainly not me either.  You want to drink and then get into a car?  Then I’ve got a problem with you because you could kill others.  Want to go and wrestle a bear in the wild?  Up to you.

Miss California, Carrie Prejean

In response to a question by Judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, whether she believed in gay marriage, Carrie responded, “We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”

Perez Hilton was ‘shocked and appalled,’ calling this the “worst answer in the history of the Miss USA Pageant.”  So the best answer would have been for Carrie to lie, apparently.  If Carrie lied and responded in support of gay rights the answer would have been the best in history?  Of course then the millions who are against gay rights would have panned her answer.  To be upfront, I am generally a supporter of gay rights.  But this isn’t about gay rights; this is about freedom of speech and of beliefs.  “No offense to anyone out there” sounds like Carrie presents her beliefs but respects those who disagree.  In an ironic twist, isn’t it Perez who is being intolerant here??

Ultimately, Perez is appalled by the very things she herself seeks – the right to freedoms of speech and freedoms of choice.  By criticizing Carrie for her beliefs and statement, what kind of an example of equal rights and tolerance does she set?  A hypocritical and self-centered one, that’s what.

Am I wrong?  What do you think?

Am I just ranting about minor things or do you agree we have become too intolerant and disrespectful of others’ beliefs and others’ rights?

To leave a comment, scroll to the bottom of the page.

To find out more about Ben, click here.

        To subscribe to get ImagineAge Updates, enter   your email in the “subscribe” box on the left side of the screen. Your email will NOT be sold!  

WHY CEOs DO SUCH STUPID THINGS

Why CEOs Do Stupid Things

BLOGGER: JOEL WEINBERGER, PHD

A scorpion asked a frog to take him across a river.  The frog refused, saying, “You will sting me.”

The scorpion replied, “It would be foolish for me to sting you because then we would both die.”

The reassured frog agreed to carry the scorpion across the river.  At the halfway point, the scorpion stung the frog.  The dying frog asked, “Why did you sting me? You will die too.”

“It’s my nature”, replied the scorpion.

We have witnessed the CEOs of the major car companies flying to Washington on private jets to ask for billions to rescue them from their own bad management decisions.  Next came the bank CEOs begging to be rescued from their foolish, almost criminal, behavior with subprime bonds.  Vikram Pandit, the CEO of Citigroup, assured Congress that he “gets it.”  A few months later, he authorized the expenditure of 10 million dollars to redo executive office suites for top Citigroup executives.  And the list for AIG is long enough to fill this essay.  The latest was that they awarded “retention” bonuses, totaling tens of millions of dollars, to employees of the very division that brought them to the brink.  Many of these valued employees have left so that the bonuses designed to retain them are instead rewarding them for jumping ship.  The excuse?  Contractual obligation.  Suddenly the corporate world has discovered obligation and responsibility, at least when the object of said values are themselves.  And now, one of these CEOs, Rick Wagoner of GM, has become a sacrificial lamb to our anger.

How do we explain this?  Stupidity?  Greed?  Arrogance?  Callous indifference to the opinions and feelings of others?  To a degree, all of the above.  But there is more going on and that more is part of human psychology.  These people acted exactly as people who hold such positions can be expected to act.  It was their nature.

People do not become CEOs by accident.  They want to run major corporations.  In addition to hard work, sacrifice, intelligence, connections, and luck, research has shown that there is a personality type that strives to climb to the top rung of the corporate ladder and is more likely to get there.  Such a person is high in what is called Power Motivation.  Power motivation refers to the desire to have an impact on the world and/or others.  When it is poorly socialized, power motivation can result in being a mob boss or a boxer who bites off ears.  When it is well socialized, it can result in rising to the top of an organization, to becoming an executive, even a CEO.

People high in power motivation have certain characteristics that go along with their need to have an impact.  They are competitive with others and assertive in their interactions.  They need to be top dog.  They crave prestige.  Thus, they value corner offices, keys to the executive washroom or even private bathrooms, exclusive country clubs, chauffer driven cars, private jets, and well-appointed offices.  They own high performance cars, wear expensive suits, and have their initials monogrammed onto their shirt cuffs.  The more such prestige items, the better.  Consider the impact of walking into a spacious, corner office with a magnificent view.  Although such an office has no bearing on the quality of work done in it, it screams importance and prestige.  This is just what the high power personality lives for.  Bonuses are important because they bestow immediate prestige.  They show how important you are and how much more important you are than your fellows.  They are better than high salaries because they can be repeated every year.

High power people also are prone to taking risks, especially when their choices are public.  This is both because big risks have more impact than small risks and because they do not want to be seen as “wimpy.”  An important person with high prestige needs to be at the forefront and show high competitiveness and nerve.  Taking risks shows “balls”, something a powerful person needs to have.  Leaders, people of high impact, top dogs, cannot be timid.  And, they get a charge out of having the kind of impact a high-risk decision can bring.

What this means is that CEOs are just behaving in accord with their personalities, their natures.  They are about prestige items, being splashy, and looking important.  They must take big risks and are especially likely to do so when others, especially competitors, are watching.  That they would behave in a manner consistent with their natures should not be surprising.  Even their inability to anticipate the public outcry their behavior engenders in our current economic climate is related to power motivation.  Much of this motive (and others) is not fully conscious.  People high in power motivation do what they do without really thinking about it.  These behaviors come naturally to them.  Only if something is clearly pointed out, would such a person become aware of the negative impression he or she is making.  This accounts for the “blindness” such people sometimes have to their foolish and callous acts.

What to do?  First, demonizing, unless the law has been broken (as with Madoff), does no good.  These people are just being who they are.  And who they are can results in positive consequences for their companies.  They work hard.  They are devoted to their companies.  It is only when their need to show off, to display, to be top dog, adversely affects business that we have the meltdowns we are now experiencing.

The good news is that these people, unlike mafia dons, are generally well socialized. They want to do the right thing.  If socialization pressures change, if what confers prestige changes, so will their behavior.  In order to reduce negative risk taking, outrageous bonuses, and out of line perks, the contingencies that support them have to be changed.  CEOs have to be made aware of the negative impact of some of their behaviors.  This changes their reward values.  The big three auto CEOs drove to their next congressional hearings instead of jetting there.  Many of the AIG bonus babies gave back their bonuses.  These items no longer conferred prestige.  Instead, they conferred shame and ridicule.  Top dogs do not want shame and ridicule.  They will do almost anything to avoid them.  The new prestige item may be $1 salaries.  Such a person is taking huge risks, making tremendous sacrifices, and garnering favorable publicity.  Such a person is having a real impact and is being admired.

Those monitoring CEOs can also keep the potential negatives of power motivation in line.  (I wouldn’t count on boards since they are likely to be high in power motivation themselves.)  If they do not, the CEOs will revert to their former behaviors once their companies are no longer in trouble so that their self-sacrificing behavior no longer has impact or creates prestige.  (We also cannot expect highly skilled people to work for nothing indefinitely.)  If stockholders know that high power people are liable to these excesses, they might keep a closer eye on them, especially when things seem too good to be true.  Make certain that perks and bonuses reflect the company’s performance rather than a competition for prestige items between a small group of competitive individuals with power.  Since stockholders can be shortsighted, focusing on immediate payoffs, government has a place as well, as watchdog.  These checks may be necessary.  If we disregard the nature of power motivation, we are likely to be stung again.

But the stockholders, society, and government also need to realize what makes high power people tick.  They need prestige.  They need to have impact.  They need the thrill of competition and of risk.  They need an outlet for these needs or they will obtain no fulfillment from their jobs.  They will have no incentives to work hard or even to seek employment in the corporate world.  They then won’t do the good they can do in our economic system.  If we don’t respect their nature, we will not benefit from it.

So, the solution is to allow, even encourage, the search for prestige and impact but to keep a watchful eye out for the excesses high power motivation people are prone to. In a nutshell, monitor, but do not straightjacket, corporate CEOs.  Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater through mistrust of the societal concerns of those high in power motivation (a left-wing excess) and don’t give free rein to unbridled power motivation in order to unleash the free market potential of talented people (a right-wing excess).

What are your thoughts?  Leave a comment.

Joel Weinberger is Professor of Psychology at Adelphi University.  He is also co-founder of Implicit Strategies.  You can find out more about Joel at www.implicitstrategies.com.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE UPDATES ON BLOG POSTS, PLEASE ENTER YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN WHERE IT SAYS “SUBSCRIBE”.

HOW TO MANAGE TIME: A LESSON FROM POKER

HOW TO MANAGE TIME:  A LESSON FROM POKER

BLOGGER:  BEN PIERSON

My brother has been a professional poker player since about 2002, when the dot-com tech magazine he worked for began going out of business.  Aside from helping him avoid the grind of an 8-6 job (are there really 9-5s anymore?), poker has provided him the means to found a (now) successful literary arts magazine, Canteen (www.canteenmag.com).  In addition to publishing unique pieces from well known writers, Canteen also runs an after school literary program up in Harlem in conjunction with StreetSquash.

My brother plays poker mostly on the internet, not over the table.*  Unlike playing in Atlantic City, Las Vegas, or a card room in Brooklyn, being an internet player means that 24hrs a day, 7 days a week, you can simply turn on a computer and find tens of thousands of people to play against.  This creates an interesting quandary.   Aside from its addictive nature, poker starts creating a framework of economic cost for your life. e.g., If I go to bed now, the girlfriend will be happy and I’ll get three extra hours sleep; but those three hours will cost me an average of X dollars, and is that really worth it? The price of a movie is no longer $10, but $1,000 in economic cost. The extra value derived from the movie/happy girlfriend is nebulous compared to the more concrete value of electronic money in your poker account. 

In recent years my brother has found a good middle ground for managing his time, controlling his work schedule instead of being controlled by it.  I think this comes in part from the success he’s had over the years and in part from the extraordinary levels of stress that comes with the job.  But getting to this more balanced point took a lot of work, a lot of missed movies and a lot of failures.

What are we 8-6ers supposed to do to manage our time – to accomplish that work/life balance?

I used to write 10-20 item to-do lists.  The list would sit there and, weeks later, barely a dent would have been made.  Life is stressful enough without this list serving as a constant reminder of things I had yet to do.  This method was a huge mistake.   In all facets of your life, don’t create a system which produces too much stress.  If you do find you’re dealing with too much stress, change something.  Please read the posts in “Healthy” by Robert Bornstein, starting with http://blog.imagineage.com/coping-with-stress-in-troubling-times/ .  Dr. Bornstein is one of the leading Doctors in the field of stress and his advice – when followed even to a small extent – can lead to a better quality of life and longer life (not too shabby).  The other posts are fantastic as well, so don’t be shy!

Now I write much shorter lists… maybe 2-3 items down.  If I’m feeling frisky, I’ll even schedule times to do them.  For example on Monday night I’ll put into my schedule:

–Tuesday at 10am, call the bank to order new checks

-12pm, order flowers for my mother’s birthday (and tell my brother it’s all set)

–2pm take a book to the gym and do 40 minutes of cardio (my therapist suggests scheduling an actual time for the gym, so I’m more prone to go; this has helped a lot).

–7pm, check http://blog.imagineage.com/ and read the latest posts

I’ve found that this way of writing shorter, more manageable lists has not only increased the rate at which I achieve these tasks, but significantly decreased the amount of stress associated with the whole process. 

What are some of the tricks you use?  While this method might work for me – for now – something completely different might work for you.  Please share – I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Some suggestions I’ve received already:

• Create a filing system.  Buy specific three ring binders (and a hole puncher) to keep your ‘subjects’ ordered.  The hole puncher part allows you to rearrange things on your lists, easily moving things forwards or backwards, or adding in tabs for subsections
• Scheduling specific times during the day to do XYZ activity – several people mentioned this has proven successful for them
• “Getting Things Done: the art of stress free productivity” by David Allen (http://tinyurl.com/385oqs)
• “The Last Lecture” by Randy Pausch, a former UVA professor.  Very moving personal story which speaks to doing the most with your time – Randy had only a few months to live after being diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer (http://tinyurl.com/6475uc) 

Most importantly the theme to this should be finding a process that alleviates stress, not creates it.  Also, you must take actionable steps.  No need to overhaul everything right this second, but take some baby steps forward and the results should speak for themselves.  What do you think?

*Ironically, my brother views his infrequent trips to Vegas as more of a vacation than anything else.  You see, in Vegas he can only sit at one table and play one hand at a time.  The dealer takes a while to shuffle and thus you’ll be playing perhaps 30-40 hands per hour.  On the internet my brother can play at 3, 4, 5, 8 tables and with computer shuffling each table plays closer to 80 hands per hour.  Thus sitting at home (or wherever in the world he may be) he can average 300 – 600 hands per hour instead of a paltry 40.

To find out more about Ben, click here to read his bio.

 IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE UPDATES ON BLOG POSTS, PLEASE ENTER YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN WHERE IT SAYS “SUBSCRIBE”.  

Alert! Your Water May Become Irreversibly Polluted!

ALERT: YOUR WATER MAY BECOME IRREVERSIBLY POLLUTED!

BLOGGER: STEPHANIE LOW

When my good friend Debbie Heiser asked me to write this blog, my first response, as always, was…no, no, focus on saving the environment… or become ineffective…we have so little time…and on and on. Until it suddenly dawned on me what a tremendous opportunity this is to do precisely that, to tell a BIG bunch of people exactly what’s happening just under our radar, and if we’re lucky, to raise such a public stink about it that it will “drive the devils back to hell,” in the words of the Liberian women who unseated their tyrannical leader Charles Taylor by sheer resolve and their determination to survive.

And that’s where we’re at–on the survival brink–only most of us are unaware of the massive disaster bearing down on us. Most of my smart, environmentally informed NY friends haven’t a clue about the threat that natural gas drilling in New York State’s Marcellus Shale is, much less what it could mean to us. So unless you live in that area (the southeastern tier of NYS), or have a home in Pennsylvania, or speak often with people from devastated communities in Texas, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, or Ohio, prepare to be surprised, shocked, outraged, and maybe even mobilized and activated.

If you live in New York State, you need to know that we’re at major risk of losing not just our legally unfiltered drinking water (the best in the country, along with only 3-4 other areas of similar size), but our water to bathe in, wash our vegetables in, water our cropland, splash around the open summer hydrants in, water our parks and potted plants in, and on and on.

And if you’re a Pennsylvanian and use the great Monongahela for your tap water, you’ve already been warned to drink and cook with bottled water. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette headlined last November 17th, “Mon River Solids a Threat to Machinery but Not Health.” (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08322/928571-113.stm )  I wonder how many people laughed at the transparently political claim that pollutants able to damage machinery would leave human bodies unharmed. I laughed—an outraged laugh to be sure—but then I don’t live in Pittsburgh.

 The consequences of such a loss, were it irrevocable –and according to the Post-Gazette, “Water treatment facilities aren’t set up to filter out [these] contaminants” – boggles the mind. We’ve never had to contemplate this kind of disaster, so all its ramifications aren’t immediately apparent, but the potential cost of importing all our water makes our current deficit, again, laughable. Then again, NYC alone uses more than 1.1 billion gallons of water daily. New York State population is twice NYC’s—how in the world could that much water be imported? Water is life; polluted water is no water and that’s death.

So, before going on to quote how and why this natural gas drilling technology creates death, I want to provide a little background on why we’re talking about it at all in NYS. I first heard about it last summer, before the financial meltdown, when natural gas developers such as Chesapeake Energy were moving in fast to buy up mineral rights from impoverished landowners in the Marcellus Shale area. The Marcellus Shale is a northeastern multi-state underground geological formation lying partially in the southeastern tier of NYS. It contains largely untapped natural gas deposits, untapped because they were economically inaccessible until our old friends Halliburton invented a technique called hydraulic fracturing–or fracking, in the vernacular. Today fracking is used for nine out of 10 natural gas wells in the United States.

Briefly, this process shoots vast amounts of water, sand and chemicals several miles underground to fracture the rock and let the gas rise to the surface. “When the gas surfaces, so does the water—laden with natural toxins, including suspected cancer-causing compounds” such as heavy metals and radiation from deep within the earth. What’s worse, added to the shale’s toxins are those injected with the fracking fluids, now returned to the surface, where the tainted water lies in open, unlined waste pits, allowing the toxins to be carried by air as far as 200 miles away. (http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=705332 )

It’s claimed that the chemicals are so diluted as to be no threat to public health, but “six-tenths of one percent of two million gallons of drilling water still equals 10,000 gallons of toxic chemicals—and that’s just from one well.” (http://www.propublica.org/feature/new-yorks-gas-rush-poses-environmental-threat-722/ )  “The US Department of Energy lists [this] water from gas drilling as among the most toxic of any oil industry byproduct.” (http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=705332 ) 

If you’re wondering how these contaminants might affect our bodies, read the 2007 testimony before the House Committee on Oversight given by the expert Dr. Theo Colborn, whose credentials include a “B.S. in pharmacy from Rutgers University, an M.A. in fresh water ecology from Western State College of Colorado, and a PhD in zoology, with distributed minors in epidemiology, toxicology, and water chemistry from the University of Wisconsin, Madison.” She knows what she’s talking about. (http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/colburn_testimony_071025.pdf )

“We are certain of one thing,” she testified. “Even at extremely low levels one would not want to drink the majority of the chemicals on the list.” Reading her testimony on the effects of the known 265 chemicals in the drilled water—and many are unknown, claimed as “proprietary secrets” by the gas developers—you’re immediately clear that you never want to have to worry if they’re going to issue from your tap.

Or you can read a much more personal account of just one of over 800 documented reports of “sickened people and animals, clouded…drinking water…flammable wells.” http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE52C07920090313?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true  Pat Farnelli talks about her children’s diarrhea and vomiting, her own stomach cramps so excruciating that “It felt like an appendicitis attack.” Others, who can barely afford bottled water for themselves, watch their animals endure projectile vomiting and lose their hair.

The fact that this is happening in Pennsylvania is important to notice because the NYS DEC claims that NYS wouldn’t be subject to all the horrible environmental and public health effects seen in western states such as NM, CO and TX because the Marcellus is geologically different from ones out West. But Pennsylvania sits on the same Marcellus Shale that NYS sits on—the effects would be the same.

An even more frightening episode involving fracking toxins happened “in the summer of 2008 when a Colorado nurse almost died from exposure while treating a gas field worker whose clothing had been doused with the chemicals.” She suffered “from heart, lung, and liver failure, plus kidney damage and blurred vision.” http://www.ombwatch.org/node/3847 )

Although human health effects include cluster illnesses and death, drilling is currently permitted within 150 feet of New Yorkers’ homes and private water wells, and within 50 feet of streams. Toxins from the drilling process leach into wells, aquifers, watersheds and rivers, contaminating the water supply along with land for local farming.

But one of the worst aspects of fracking isn’t immediately apparent—it’s the immense amounts of water required. Each well’s ten possible fracking events requires 1-5 million gallons of fresh water. That’s a possible 50 million gallons of water for one well–and Chesapeake Energy, the major player in the Marcellus Shale, “is planning to significantly increase its Marcellus Shale drilling activity during 2009-2010,” according to its website http://www.chk.com/Operations/Unconventional/Pages/MarcellusShale.aspx). This translates into thousands of wells. Multiply each by 50,000,000 gallons.

Where is all this water going to come from?? The UN recently reported the current and looming water shortages around the world. It warned that, aside from creating “climate change refugees…water shortages are having another unusual effect: they are beginning to constrain economic growth…in parts of China, India…and the western United States…The world will have “substantially more people” living in urban and coastal areas vulnerable to scarce water resources.” (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090312.WATER12/TPStory/Environment )

In other words, we are looking into a near future when water has become the new oil, and yet many of our state officials are willing to officiate over the permanent loss of billions upon billions of gallons of one of most precious natural resources, in return for the very illusory fool’s gold of immediate tax revenues–what’s been estimated to be about $1 billion a year.

This doesn’t even begin to address the immediate fiscal fact that if NYC, with just half the state’s population, loses its legally unfiltered water supply, law mandates that it must build a filtration plant. Cost: $27 billion. (If you want to know where that number comes from, multiply the $3.1 billion Croton filtration plant, which supplies 10% of NYC’s water, by the remaining 90%, which flows to us from the Delaware watershed. Voilà–$27 billion! Not a good bargain.) http://boogiedowner.blogspot.com/2008/11/croton-filtration-plant-to-cost-31.html How the rest of the state will get potable water is anybody’s guess. And the future is visible out West. (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE52A04P20090311)

All this doesn’t include the worse news that we don’t necessarily have the filtering technology to eliminate all the fracking chemicals, some of which the industry refuses to disclose as “proprietary,” like the Coke recipe. (Coke, however, does us the favor of listing its ingredients on the side of the bottle.) Filtering tainted water would be, at best, very slow, very expensive, and very possibly ineffective. Given that scenario, I’d consider moving out of the state. But a lot of people don’t have that choice. And then there’s the question of where to move to?  Over half the United States is under consideration for this kind of devastating gas drilling.

Other effects of drilling include incessant truck traffic, spills, rampant noise pollution, the destruction of forests and wildlife habitats, and the degradation of air quality. On many drilling sites, frequent accidental gas fires have burned for weeks. In short, New York’s bucolic hiking, hunting, and fishing areas—an economic resource for tourism–would become burnt-out industrial sites. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQOiJ3Ne7j0,  http://www.endeavornews.com/news/2008/1004/news/011.html    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxNpz41wSOg&feature=related)

There’s another aspect to losing fresh water throughout the state: over the last two centuries, rural areas provided much of urban food. Very soon, as we’re beginning to experience now, food from great distances will become too expensive to import. The rural areas that would see the most extensive gas drilling would not only have lost enough water to make food production difficult-to-impossible and expensive—it would have lost uncalculated acres of land to drilling and drilling rig devastation, which leaves the land so polluted that it becomes unreclamably barren. Losing our water to gas drilling now means losing our local food when faster-than-expected global warming creates local shortages. That’s in the foreseeable future.

Have you heard enough? Are you scared? Are you scared enough to write a letter to Governor Paterson and ask him for protection against this uncalculated risk? And get all your friends to do it too? He could Just Say No to gas drilling, but he needs to hear from a HUGE number of constituents to out-shout the voice of the natural gas industry, which stands to reap billions from the rape of New York. Meanwhile New York faces a budget deficit that is drawing the attention of all legislators and the press and the public as well.

Well, here’s a letter, all written, stating much of what I’ve just described. Copy and paste it into a Word document, print it out and mail it, signed. Get all your friends to do the same. And when you’ve done that, send a little post back to this blog to let me know you’re on the case. We need to stand together and work together…or else.

Stephanie

NEXT TIME: The Ban(e)-Boone Plan

Governor David A. Paterson
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

Dear Governor Paterson:

I oppose natural gas drilling within or near any of New York State's drinking water supplies and call for a ban on such a practice. This includes but is not limited to the Catskill and Delaware watersheds, which provide 90 percent of the drinking water for over nine million New Yorkers. Such a ban should apply to all local watersheds and ground water sources all over New York State.

Gas drilling in our watersheds and near our aquifers would put our most precious natural resource -- clean, pure drinking water -- at severe risk of contamination. It will also pollute our air and soil, have negative impacts on people's health, and increase greenhouse gas emissions.

Governor, the long-term costs of extracting gas from shale far outweigh any short-term economic benefits.  I call on you to ban it in New York State. But you can do more than that.

2008 saw a new national record for drilling permits—more than 7100. Over 44 million acres of public lands are being leased for oil and gas development. According to The Wall Street Journal, more rigs are operating in the U.S. than at any point in over two decades. The gas drilling industry is poised to expand its activities throughout the country. We cannot, as a nation, live with the devastation this will present to our air, land, public health, and especially our water. There are tremendous possibilities in the wind and solar industries that need to be addressed and promoted.

I call on you to lead a governors’ initiative to protect every state’s waters from the shortsighted pursuit of drilling money and its citizens from the critical shortages this pursuit will inevitably create. I urge you to join with governors such as Bill Ritter in Colorado, where regulations have been tightened as a result of toxic spills into streams, threatening the Colorado River and the drinking water of nearby municipa-lities.  You, as the Governor of an important state, can be the leader we need to bring sanity to a looming crisis masquerading as an economic opportunity. I call on you to be that leader.

Sincerely,

Your Name
Your Organization
123 Your St.
Yousville, YO 12345
Phone: (123)456-7890
Fax: (123)456-7890x123

 IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE UPDATES ON BLOG POSTS, PLEASE ENTER YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN WHERE IT SAYS “SUBSCRIBE”.  ___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________