Outsourcing Personnel

The current silence in the media today regarding outsourcing is horrifying. A sound and reasoned debate is desperately needed, and tragically short. The only voice in the media is entirely one-sided and not at all useful. The fallacy of this debate as proposed by Corporate America is that it’s somehow good for America. This proposal rests on three premises that are essentially false.
The first premise is that there are insufficient professionals – engineers and scientists – to supply American business demands. American universities do not graduate enough math and science majors to supply corporate interests. Thus, corporations must look overseas for their supply of professionals. If one understands the nature of capitalism, anytime there is a supply shortage demand increases and costs escalate. What is not generally understood is that this is good for America. By increasing salaries, more students are likely to study math and science to guaranty their future career success. However, by outsourcing companies have managed to subvert capitalism by acquiring their personnel overseas at a fraction of the cost. By doing this, they manage to drive down the costs of professional salaries to those commensurate with the third world, where professionals do not have nearly the same education costs as those in the U.S. Further, by driving down professional salaries corporations have reduced the likelihood that prospective students would go to the trouble of studying key subject areas – if there is no reward in doing so, they are not likely to do it. This further reduces the amount of students studying math and science, which is the basis of the argument.
The second premise is that by outsourcing corporations claim that they are able to reduce costs and pass those savings on to the consumer in the form of low cost products – thus pushing that money into the economy. This proposition is actually laughable. By firing three million workers this is somehow good because now those people could buy cheaper products, if they had jobs. Further, the rest of us who managed to maintain employment are now given the privilege of paying more for services – for providing healthcare for those now uninsured, for sustaining higher taxes or a higher debt burden as a result of a lower tax base, or for providing city services for those not able to pay.
Finally, corporate leadership claims that by outsourcing profits are maintained and American interests are somehow served. This argument rests on the notion that American business is somehow intrinsically American because it originated in the U.S. or serves the U.S. consumer. This, however, is not necessarily the case. Many “U.S.” corporations now register in the Caribbean islands – to reduce their tax liability. They produce their products, if they produce a product, in overseas markets in So. East Asia or Latin America. And, with outsourcing, any professional services required to design and package a product or service is additionally accomplished overseas. Given these conditions, what could be said about a “U.S.” corporation that makes it more American than a foreign corporation that sells products in the U.S?
The sociological terminology associated with this situation is “the tragedy of the commons” – where increasing numbers of users attempt to gain an unfair advantage at the expense of the system that sustains them. Unfortunately, more and more companies are taking advantage of their American association in order to reap the rewards of the American consumer market. At the same time, fewer and fewer companies are concerned with contributing to the economy they so clearly benefit from. If there is no penalty in non-contribution, this kind of behavior will only get worse. In the end, what is to happen when none of them are willing to contribute? An interesting spin on this idea might be outsourcing management at third world salaries and returning the savings to stockholders.

This seriously needs to be explored. Someone please tell me Americans would not be in favor of this???

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90714692

Change the laws and make it possible~!
I think everyone would agree it's a no-brainer.

Former vice president Al Gore has layed down “the green gauntlet” (kinda silly way to put it) to put America on the track to energy independence. I have been blabbing at people for years about this. Get a beer in me and ask me about energy, and I will spill out over the sides talking about how we need an “Energy Moon Shot“. The only people who are against this are people who have something to gain by it not happening.

• Update the US energy grid so that everyone can be a producer as well as a consumer
• Connect the entire energy grid to let electricity move around more freely
• Remove all Gas and oil tax breaks and put them toward, Solar, Wind and Water energy incentives
• Remove the penny from circulation and round all transactions up. Use the money generated to first pay the national debt then put toward energy independence.
• New Manhattan Project - Task all the scientists available with creating new electric based fuel cell technologies

I am not optimistic about this happening though. A wise man once told me, “oil is the way it works, because it can be owned. As soon as energy is a process and not a commodity then all hell breaks loose. People who own the commodity will never let that happen.”

My brother Tom wrote this post, but I had to give my harumph!! Amen Tom!

Finally got the bugs worked out, which I guess weren't that big. Apparently, since they revised the Blog I had to sign up for a g-mail account. That done, I'm free to start posting again. Problem is, what direction do I want to take this thing??? I think this will require some thought. "I'll be back..."

Competence..?
I can’t seem to get away from this no matter what I do. I am constantly reminded of "competence." It’s not rocket science – you have a job to do and you do it. There are too many instances in society today of people that do not do their job, or the job they are paid to do. I call it competence, other may call it something else. Basically it’s a problem wherein people do not take their job seriously and only give it minor attention; thus, work that should be completed as part of their job is invariably passed on to someone else. I don't know why it should be complicated, but somehow it is.
I recently read John Wooden’s book on leadership and if you accept his premise, any failure in an organization, or with people in an organization, can be directly attributed to management or a lack thereof. It is management’s responsibility to make sure that people are accountable. They pass on credit for success and accept responsibility for failure. Being in a management or leadership, in his words, position does not mean less work; in fact, it means more work.
Let’s face it, certain people will thrive no matter where they are, or what they are doing, but others will never have the basic skill set to make them successful, and as far as I’m concerned should not be given a "free ride" because they lack it. I do not care to do extra work to make up for someone else’s shortcomings. Maybe that makes me sound Republican or something, but I am a Darwinist at heart – biology is what it is. I do believe in a social safety net, but that’s just intelligent design.
In the end, I guess it’s about values.

The drama about children:
There appears to be an issue in the media regarding unruly children in public places, and I thought I would weigh in on the matter.
Let me start by saying, "everything in moderation." Honestly, I don’t think anyone has a problem with well-mannered, or temporarily unruly, children in public places, but many of the children of today are a different story altogether.
Where are the parents? Is a refrain that’s heard over and over and never seems to be answered. There’s this entitlement mentality creeping around in society today, wherein many parents seem to think that the fact that they have children, and a "family," gives them special status. Somehow other people should be made to make sacrifices for their special status.
It’s strangely ironic, since many of these same parents had the entitlement mentality long before they ever had kids. The fact that they had kids just prolonged their insanity. At some point in their single years it should have dawned on them that they are not entitled to anything, that most people have to work for their achievements, but just as the realization was creeping over them they squirted out a couple of puppies and went on with their folly.
I hate to have to be the one to break the news to most of you parents, especially since I’m single, but parenting is a full-time job. You decided to have children, or stupidly did nothing to plan otherwise, and now you can do your job of tending to them.
I understand the whole "it takes a village" mentality, but that presupposes an interest in the village prolonging this ridiculousness. The fact that there are a number of people and businesses willing to stand up to you people should indicate to you that the village does not approve or condone of your err in child raising regardless of what you think.

Midlife-Crisis Unveiled:
I can’t say I know the truth of it for everyone, but I’d bet there’s a good amount of guys that feel the same as myself. The source is just a lack of patience, or tolerance, for all the bullshit. Life is too short to put up with the anxieties, or pretend to be something you’re not.
At a certain point, I would assume it’s late thirties/early forties, most guys take a good, hard look at themselves and where they’re going, or what they’re doing and think – WTF?! Why do I put up with this shit? What’s my due? Inevitably they have to satisfactorily take stock of their lives, and answer that question.
Adjustments are to be expected; either the situation is altered to a more equitable solution, or it is dissolved. Furthermore, the male in question is less likely to involve himself in situations that he no longer finds equitable.
We always here the sob story of a woman who says, "he ran off with some bimbo."
Yeah, that’s a reality. He got tired of all the anxiety and drama and found a situation more equitable. Granted he may have the same anxiety and drama from the "bimbo," but he's obviously willing to trade the inequality for the appearance.
Let’s face it. This is not hell, and if we are victims at all it is free will that we are enslaved to. If you have chosen the situation in which you find yourself, your complaints are yours to reconcile.

Changing times…
At what point in our lives do we take the blinders off and live with what’s in front of us? For the longest time I had this idea that there was some kind of ideal out there. I traveled around, tried a lot of different things, and probably came to the same conclusion that a lot of people come to. There is no ideal: life is about compromise.
We can struggle against compromise and fight for our ideals, but in the end it comes to all of us. Change is inevitable. Either you move with it, or you die off as a result of it.
I like to imagine a life more glamorous than my own, but that’s all that it is – images. Reality is more conventional.
Could it be that I’m responding to the pressures of my demographic? It’s a possibility, but then no one likes to think of himself or herself as "average."
In the end we’re all a product of nature and nurture – both of which instruct us to be fruitful and multiply.

Courtesy…
I can’t help but wonder about the nature of courtesy. Is there less of it these days, or is it something that you tend to notice more as you get older?
Ok, a story:
I went out on a date the other night with a fairly attractive girl. I thought we were having a pretty good time, but she abruptly decided it was time to go home. I probably got the wrong idea because she asked me to take her home – if she didn’t trust me to some degree, she probably wouldn’t have asked. So, having this idea that we had a pretty good time, I called her to ask if she’d like to go out again. I got no response. She complained about her phone not working when we were out, so I sent an email; again, no response. Now, I’m not an idiot. I get the hint. But, I’m also a big boy. Do we really need to play these ridiculous games? Why can’t we just call, or message, and say "you’re a decent person, but I’m looking for something else."
Yes, I had a similar situation, and no I didn’t have the guts to contact the other person directly. I sent her an email.
Is it really so hard? Are we really that selfish? I suppose I’m just in a minority in that I actually think beyond myself. I don’t know…

Ok, it’s pretty clear to me that something is going on. I can’t help but wonder if this occurs cyclically, or not. The U.S. appears to be moving in a conservative bias, while the rest of the globe pursues liberalism. The U.S., however, is a country that was founded on liberalism while the rest of the globe has always had conservative tendencies. So, what does this situation suggest of our current circumstances?
Are we regressing, or is the rest of the world advancing? I suspect that U.S. strength will shortly be sublimated to the rest of the world. We are in the process of seeing economic empowerment in the rest of the world while U.S. resources are squandered in pursuit of an "ancien regime," and unsustainable economic policy.
What now? How long can this continue?

Where are we now? In truth, who the hell cares?! I think, for the most part, we’re just wallowing in ignorance. It’s entirely reasonable to assume that any "news" you get these days is anything but, so where does that leave us?
I heard a program called "Counterspin" by the watchgroup F.A.I.R. the other day on Philadelphia radio, and I was impressed. No, they didn’t really report anything "new," but they did give the important background sorely lacking in mainstream media. If anything, it was a welcome surprise.
It’s a sign of the times too when you try to punch up those criteria for a search and Yahoo gives you the results but will not link to them. As an adult who did not live through the McCarthy era, I wonder if it was anything like now. Are patriot and commie interchangeable?

Well, I guess the Bushies have proven that integrity doesn’t matter. To some extent, I guess we all knew that. This is the age of "reality TV." Don’t live your own life, live vicariously through someone else on TV. "It’s REAL. Those scenes would never be staged." You have to hand it to them.
The Republicans are obviously better at appealing to the fears of the populace, and pacifying them with candy. On the other hand, the Democrats want to believe in Camelot again – as if it ever existed; Kennedy won by a thin margin – and engage people’s hopes and desires for a better future.
Who’s more in touch with the reality of the times? Or, who’s creating the times? Seems sort of ironic. The same people that champion "family values," are also the people that undercut democracy by pursuing a campaign of debasement – attack, defamation, and false representation.
Where do we go from here? Personally, I think the tides are going to turn, even if it takes a decade. It might be advantageous for us liberals to take over the Republican Party the way the Christian Right has. Would be awfully funny to get a radical leftist elected to office under the guise of being a Republican.

Position: What’s the key word in the presidential election this fall? I don’t think it’s Iraq, or economy, or even "security." The key word, as I see it, is integrity. A word that is conspicuously absent from election materials. George Bush has had every opportunity this world has to offer presented to him on a silver platter, and he has never failed to achieve mediocrity. The overriding message behind Mr. Bush’s life is not to reach for your highest aspirations, but to use every trick or opportunity available to your own benefit – as well that of your undeserving friends.
The ultimate conservative mantra is to consolidate power in the hands of "the knowledgeable few." The masses are not educated enough to know, or do, the right thing; therefore, misinformation is deliberately crafted to support the central premise. It’s unfortunate, but it wouldn’t happen if it didn’t work. There are too many studies that support it. How many Americans believe that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq? Or, how many low to middle-income persons believe that tax cuts for the wealthy benefit them?
In contrast, John Kerry’s record in Congress doesn’t matter to me. I watched the Democratic convention briefly, but the rhetoric really meant nothing. Someone who strives for greatness despite being born into privilege has integrity in my book. Any man who enlists in the military to fight a war he’s not entirely certain about because of his sense of duty and responsibility has integrity.
The liberal mantra, if you could say there is one, is more about fairness than anything else. It’s inconceivable to me that this message is not more widely accepted. One really has to understand the nature of wealth to comprehend the significance – wealth is nothing more than a societal agreement. Society agrees to the idea of personal property, and thus that right is protected. If that agreement is broken, perhaps by the poor who are pushed to such a point as having nothing to lose [in the manner of the French revolution] then wealth ceases to exist in its present form.
The current election is not just about the presidency of the U.S. The election is about differing ideals and the future of the country. Do we strive for greatness and equality of opportunity for all, or do we trust a number of stodgy old-white-men to make decisions behind closed doors that "benefit everyone?"

Position: In a conversation I had many years ago with a friend, I suggested that it was “wrong” for people to demonstrate against the U.S. military and their combat actions. I’d like to take a moment and revise that. The point I was trying to make at the time was that it’s wrong for people to demonstrate against, or to, the military as an organization.
I fully understand that certain actions are outrageous and unacceptable, but I do not feel that demonstrating against the military is the most effective method of resolving the situation. Demonstrations against the military do not serve to correct wrongful and egregious actions, but do contribute to a decrease in the overall morale of military forces – usually under high stress given their combat role.
Speaking as a former military member, we are all fully aware that the orders we follow are by choice. However, whether or not we are involved in any “combat” or “policing” situations is a decision made by government leadership, lawmakers and the public-at-large.
I personally feel that a certain degree of excessive or illegal actions can be expected in any war or warlike situation; thus the expression “unleash the dogs of war.” Combat, and war in general, is not a role that any person can be expected to perform according to a predetermined guideline or rulebook. Yes, training is carried out to prepare soldiers for the situations they might encounter, but how strictly that training is adhered to in the midst of the high stress of gunfire and bombings is a different matter altogether.
Ultimately, there is nothing clean about war. I fully believe that military service members should be answerable to U.S. and U.N. laws, but public outcry and demonstration should be directed towards government leadership and lawmakers – who should consider potential debacles prior to committing troops.

Quote: McWorld’s advocates will argue that the “market” does “serve” individuals by empowering them to “choose” but the choice is always about which items to buy and consume, never about whether to buy or consume anything at all; or about the right to earn an income that makes consumption possible; or about how to regulate and contain consumption so that it does not swallow up other larger public goods that cannot be advanced in the absence of democratic public institutions.

Jihad vs. McWorld, by Benjamin R. Barber

The latest dilemma: At what point does the political-economy collapse? There’s a continuing push for internationalized capitalism and expanding markets, at the same time, there is less concern for growing unemployment and societal disunity – not just in the U.S., but worldwide.
If we accept that the cost of living exceeds job growth and real wage increases, then we must also accept that at some point in the future this situation will create havoc.
Internationalization of capitalism involves the quest for cheap labor markets to produce goods sold in the first-world market, where the highest profits can be achieved. The inherent problem of internationalization is that it requires cheap labor, and in order for the U.S. to compete in a world economy the U.S. will need to devolve salaries to a point equivalent to labor markets elsewhere in the world.
Compounding the problem is that the cost of living in the U.S. is among the highest in the world. Continued internationalization threatens the societal structure of the U.S. by denying the backbone that creates and maintains the [consumer] prosperity of this country. Is it possible to return to feudalism? I would argue that polarization of this U.S. society is one of the greatest threats of our future. There are too many Americans who will not accept marginalization in order to support the powers-that-be.
Revolution has always been fomented from the marginalized middle class. The powers-that-be continue to market the idea of the individual and divide the interests of the middle class, but that can only work for so long. At a certain point, the populace wakes from its coma of plenitude and demands the parity it deserves.

OpEd: The Outsourcing Debate, or lack of one

The current silence in the media today regarding outsourcing is horrifying. A sound and reasoned debate is desperately needed, and tragically short. The only voice in the media is entirely one-sided and not at all useful. The fallacy of this debate as proposed by Corporate America is that it’s somehow good for America. This proposal rests on three premises that are essentially false.

The first premise is that there are insufficient professionals – engineers and scientists – to supply American business demands. American universities do not graduate enough math and science majors to supply corporate interests. Thus, corporations must look overseas for their supply of professionals. If one understands the nature of capitalism, anytime there is a supply shortage demand increases and costs escalate. What is not generally understood is that this is good for America. By increasing salaries, more students are likely to study math and science to guaranty their future career success. However, by outsourcing companies have managed to subvert capitalism by acquiring their personnel overseas at a fraction of the cost. By doing this, they manage to drive down the costs of professional salaries to those commensurate with the third world, where professionals do not have nearly the same education costs as those in the U.S. Further, by driving down professional salaries corporations have reduced the likelihood that prospective students would go to the trouble of studying key subject areas – if there is no reward in doing so, they are not likely to do it. This further reduces the amount of students studying math and science, which is the basis of the argument.

The second premise is that by outsourcing corporations claim that they are able to reduce costs and pass those savings on to the consumer in the form of low cost products – thus pushing that money into the economy. This proposition is actually laughable. By firing three million workers this is somehow good because now those people could buy cheaper products, if they had jobs. Further, the rest of us who managed to maintain employment are now given the privilege of paying more for services – for providing healthcare for those now uninsured, for sustaining higher taxes or a higher debt burden as a result of a lower tax base, or for providing city services for those not able to pay.

Finally, corporate leadership claims that by outsourcing profits are maintained and American interests are somehow served. This argument rests on the notion that American business is somehow intrinsically American because it originated in the U.S. or serves the U.S. consumer. This, however, is not necessarily the case. Many “U.S.” corporations now register in the Caribbean islands – to reduce their tax liability. They produce their products, if they produce a product, in overseas markets in So. East Asia or Latin America. And, with outsourcing, any professional services required to design and package a product or service is additionally accomplished overseas. Given these conditions, what could be said about a “U.S.” corporation that makes it more American than a foreign corporation that sells products in the U.S?

The sociological terminology associated with this situation is “the tragedy of the commons” – where increasing numbers of users attempt to gain an unfair advantage at the expense of the system that sustains them. Unfortunately, more and more companies are taking advantage of their American association in order to reap the rewards of the American consumer market. At the same time, fewer and fewer companies are concerned with contributing to the economy they so clearly benefit from. If there is no penalty in non-contribution, this kind of behavior will only get worse. In the end, what is to happen when none of them are willing to contribute?

Rant: Day of Frustration

The division of motor vehicles, in my case, has to be synonymous with time wasted. I honestly don’t think it’s possible to visit the agency without getting caught in some foul up from my past. Remember that speeding ticket you got in New York when you just got your license? Well, it turns out that the court administrator in that little community in the-middle-of-nowhere never recorded your payment – and now you have to find that ten-plus year-old record of your payment to clear up this matter.

I argue that there should be a statute of limitations on vehicular fines. If after five years the penalty has not been paid or acknowledged, then it should be annulled. The fact is that it’s entirely conceivable that the fine has been paid and not recorded as such – a result of some administrative error. In this situation the burden falls upon the fined to prove they have, in fact, paid the fine; the downside is that records beyond five years are rarely maintained. The fined, in this particular case, would now be required to pay the penalty twice in order to settle the motor vehicle records.

Critics may argue that this kind of system keeps criminals off the streets and highways by identifying them through their driver’s licenses. The most blaring inconsistency with that reasoning is that criminals have no problem with breaking the law – which is why they’re criminals. If they want to circumvent the system, they have only to use an alias to apply for a license in another state.

Another argument is that it pays to keep all this information straight so one doesn’t get into trouble. That would seem fair if in fact there were some sort of justice associated with it. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. The only justification for a system of this sort is economics. The townships that impose the fines seek to obtain needed fees, in lieu of taxes, through a system that is highly suspect. It seems entirely strange that there should be a statute of limitation on every crime, except murder and paying fines on your driver’s license. The lesson to be learned here is that there is no justice.

Words: Employment in America
I've come to a conclusion... There are two tracks in the employment sector these days, and neither is good. One is the uneducated [non-diploma] track, where you just go straight into the workforce and develop experience. These people are not unintelligent, but "limited" from the outset. One could achieve an education, but ones upward mobility is somewhat limited.
The other is the educated track - where the person goes to college and gets a degree or extended degree [bachelors, graduate] before entering the workforce.

REALITY of the job market today is that there are TOO many companies that are not hiring the latter in significant numbers, unless you want to work on "commission." The barely livable wage today is being paid to the people with 5-10 yrs administrative experience [with or without a degree]. "We're looking for good soldiers."
If you're educated and looking for a job, the competition is very high for even the most menial position – unless you have specialized skills. The $30k/yr. job now receives applications from law school and graduate students. Can employers afford to be disrespectful and selective? Unfortunately YES. And thus, an education does not really yield a living wage [factoring in the cost of education and expenses of living in a city]. One could conceivably apply for the admin positions, but companies are distrustful of that too, as they think you're likely to jump-ship as soon as you find a "real" job.
So where does that leave a great number of college graduates? At best, disgruntled - at worst, marginalized. Tax cuts for the wealthy is NOT, nor has it ever been, a solution. It's important to remember that historically revolution is fomented in the marginalized and educated middleclasses.

OpEd: Employment
A recent CNN news story reported that a growing amount of business professionals claim that they “have a shortage of qualified candidates” for open employment positions. I would like to take a moment and dispute this claim.

As many of you know, or don’t know, I have been looking for work for over a year now. My resume listed everywhere – employers have contacted me on very few occasions. When I contact employers directly about open positions, or about finding a position, I’m told to leave my resume and someone will contact me. No one ever contacts me. If I call the prospective employer, the receptionist screening the calls nearly always assures me that “they are busy and someone will likely contact you if they have an opening.”

Now, I won’t argue that I’m the right candidate for every position, or that I have the right qualifications for every position. It appears to me, however, that prospective employers are so overly picky these days that a shortage of qualified candidates could be claimed for something as trivial as a difference of 5 wpm in typing speed.
So, the inevitable question is: what constitutes “qualified candidates?” Without a doubt a Fry Cook at McDonalds would not qualify as an Executive Assistant at a Fortune 500 company; however, an Administrative Assistant should definitely be considered. Moreover, anyone with administrative skills should be considered.
The problem with the economy today is NOT a shortage of qualified candidates. The problem today is a shortage of vision. During the 90’s a janitor who showed a degree of intelligence and capacity would have been trained and promoted as high as his competence took him.

Today managers and human resource professionals find any reason at all to disqualify otherwise qualified candidates. “We know that this position isn’t your dream job, so we’re looking for another candidate,” I was told recently. The message, of course, is that they did not trust that I have integrity, and assumed I would jump ship as soon as I found my “dream job.” The answer for them is that the candidate they seek aspires to mediocrity; if the position was for an Administrative Assistant, then that person should never want to be an Office Manager or anything more than an AA. In fact, there is little incentive for that AA to learn anything new in order to contribute to, or enhance, a company’s bottom-line. Why should they? Zero aspiration equals zero motivation.

Previously, the focus of hiring was not on the bottom-line, but on possibility. The janitor, as mentioned earlier, was thought capable of adding to an area of the company and was trained to provide that needed ‘umph.’ Did he know he was capable? Did management know he was capable? Did he have any kind of record?
Today the point is the bottom-line. Business professionals want people with a “proven track record,” even if that record is for emptying the trash. “Yes, at my previous job I was able to empty twenty-four garbage cans in one hour.” In fact, they will undoubtedly list the position that way in the classifieds, “Fortune 500 company in need of experienced Janitor. Must have 3-5 years experience and ability to empty twenty-four garbage cans in one hour minimum.” Otherwise competent janitors would apply for this position, or would be considered for this position, but today they are “not qualified.”

Now, I’m sure people would argue that limits must be set, and standards adhered to, to properly limit the pool of potential job candidates. There is a certain degree of validity to this argument, depending upon the potential position of the aspiring candidate. If one was hiring for a Telecom Technician, obviously the proper candidate must have Telecom experience – likewise for a business manager. However, when hiring for that same position, one cannot rule out telecom technicians because they lack experience with one or two pieces of telecom equipment, or fall short in the years of experience category. As any Industrial-Organization Psychologist would tell you, ‘previous experience is no guarantor of future success. One cannot gauge the motivations of potential candidates based on their current abilities.’

When it comes down to the bottom-line, this talk about “lack of qualified candidates” sounds like whining. What happened to the managers of years past who had the ability to gather a group of disparate people, unite them in a common vision, and inspire them to succeed? What happened to the HR professionals who had the ability to see that diamond-in-the-ruff capable of enhancing the company’s potential? A real “lack of qualified candidates” should suggest that businesses are investing in education and training programs – however, I shudder to think of what the reality is. Has the greatness passed?