On the bus

With all this screaming about how B.C.'s carbon tax adds to gas price hikes, it's interesting that in the U.S., higher prices are having an effect. Americans' driving is at a five-year low, because, among other things, they're switching to transit.

But here, we get screaming. And I'm convinced it's because transit use is a generational thing.

I ride transit because I find it more convenient, quicker, and much cheaper than driving. Also, the federal government lets me deduct the cost of a transit pass from my income tax.

I'd say that's a compelling value proposition, but take SkyTrain and you'll see that, generally, riders are young and/or ethnic. There'll be a handful of “traditional” Vancouverites – older and, um, non-ethnic.

I'm sure this is partly due to habit. It's also probably due to a desire not to be crammed into crowded cars with all those ethnics – a sentiment I've heard expressed in various forms.

But mostly the ridership divide has to do with which Vancouver you live in – the Vancouver of today or the one of 30 years ago.

Back then, most people in the region were of English or similar descent, lived in houses with big yards, and easily got around in cars. It was a big town where people could maintain a larger personal space.

Now, Vancouver region is crowded with 2 million people, many of whom come from dense urban areas where public transit is common. They're used to it. Young people use it out of thrift, or out of environmental passion.

A lot of those people screaming about the carbon tax are probably the same people who wouldn't be caught dead on transit. They don't know it, and they never will like it.

• Add new comment

Newsstand flasher

Earlier this year, the Museum of Modern Art in New York launched an exhibit, which runs through next March, on the magazine cover art of George Lois . (Featured at left is the magazine's current editor, David Granger.) Lois was, for most of the 1960s, the art director at Esquire magazine – and he’s credited with single-handedly changing the way the magazine world looks at that pivotal front page. No longer just a place to plop an unused shot from a feature photo shoot, the cover image, as interpreted by Lois, became an iconic, provocative statement: about the magazine, but more generally about the issues and ideas germane to that magazine’s readership.

Since Lois left the magazine in 1972, a number of editors and art directors have tried to replicate his style – usually with only middling success. Even this magazine, in its own modest way, tried something Lois-esque with the July “Top 100” cover : a take (rip-off, if you will) on the Warholian soup can motif. The idea with this, as with all covers, is to make you stop: stop browsing the aisles at Chapter’s, or Safeway, or London Drugs, and look at the magazine. If we’re lucky, you’ll pick it up and flip through it. If we’re exceptionally lucky, you might even buy the thing. Mission accomplished – a successful cover.

But with over 700 magazines launched in Canada each year, it’s becoming harder and harder to stand out on newsstands – soup cans and scantily-clad babes notwithstanding. Which makes the recent news from David Granger all the more intriguing. With its September issue, Esquire has paid an undisclosed amount to have 111,000 newsstand copies (out of a total circulation of 720,000) embedded with a battery-powered device that will flash the phrase “The 21st Century Begins Now” from the cover. “Magazines have basically looked the same for 150 years,” Granger told the New York Times. “I have been frustrated with the lack of forward movement in the magazine industry.”

Whether flashing electronic covers is, indeed, progress – an improvement on the work of George Lois and others – is a matter of some debate. As to whether you and I will stop and look – and maybe buy? There is no question.

• Add new comment

How stupid is stupid?

So Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has ridden to the “rescue” of all those stupid homebuyers out there by refusing to back the 40-year-mortgage, effectively killing it.

Too dangerous, say CMHC's clients (lenders) who have been spooked by the US subprime mortgage crisis, which they aided and abetted. According to the boffins, always willing to help save us from ourselves, a 40-year, no money or little down mortgage tends to draw the marginals who can't really afford mortgages.

Normally, I'd be with them. For most people a 40-year mortgage is about as stupid as stupid gets. You end up paying three times the cost of your home in fees and interest, just for the dubious privilege of getting into the housing market.

But there's fallout in this move, and it's going to affect millions of Canadians, most specifically in BC.

That's because the 40-year flexible mortgage was perfect for the self-employed, or micro-business operator (who make up more than 90 per cent of BC businesses). The long-term mortgage meant they could get into homeownership, which meant they could have an asset to help fund their businesses.

And, in many cases, it was the only way they could get a mortgage at all.

Ever since mortgages were invented, the lending system has insisted on a dependable repayment schedule, almost always tied to a steady job. The bankers are right from a math point of view, but not from a life or business point of view, which is filled with ups and downs. This is especially true for the self employed and very small business people, who have routinely been treated like pariahs by bankers.

Self employed and micro business operators have extremely variable income: Their businesses have rhythms, which cause bankers to shudder and recoil in horror. Undependable income? Take a hike.

Most (I hope) experienced business operators know about these rhythms and usually budget for them. In entrepreneur training, I've long taught a form of this called feast or famine budgeting. Or they have coverage in the form of operating lines of credit – usually tied to their homes -- to smooth out the peaks and valleys.

But most bankers, firmly rooted in the mid 20th century when everybody had a job, don't like non-conformity. So they tend to give these potential mortgagees the bum's rush.

As an example, I can recall one situation where a couple applied for a mortgage, and the husband who nominally owned the (successful) company was rejected because he was self-employed, but the wife was approved because she was “employed” by her husband.

More generous lenders insist that the self-employed bring in tax forms for three years, or often, five years to prove they have steady revenue. But if entrepreneurs are doing their jobs properly, they show very little taxable income: Their imperative is to get their taxable income down to as little as possible.

So the long-term mortgage was very helpful for these people. It meant they could keep their expected payments very low – budgeting for lean times, so to speak – and then could slap on extra payments during fat times. Usually this flexible approach resulted in a mortgage paydown similar to those performed by the steady jobholders.

But, of course that would mean self-control and discipline, and the authorities obviously don't think these people have that.

Sure entrepreneurs might be able to leap into the business world and carve out a living on sheer skill, drive, and ability to react to change.

But trust them to be able to pay back a mortgage? Forget it.

• Add new comment

That's rich

So now I know the economic boom is peaking in this country, and maybe even in this province. That's because recently an event was held that promised to show everybody HOW TO GET RICH IN CANADA!

This FREE lecture featured “Canadian 'Rich Dad' Darren Weeks”, who was going to show all and sundry how to Get On the Canadian Fast Track to Success. Weeks, is in his own words “the most successful Facilitator of CASHFLOW events in Canada,“—which is interesting because I've never heard of anyone facilitating these events except him.

I don't know how many people showed up for this event, but I'm betting they were all there for the same reason. They think that everybody right now is making a fortune and they're not.

These how-to-get-rich seminars always appear near the end of an economic boom because they're aimed at the lowest end of the scale—ordinary workers who feel they've somehow missed out because they're “working for someone else.”

You know the drill. Their lives suck because they have to (in Weeks' words):
     Deal with rush hour traffic
     Limit holidays to two weeks per year
     Send their kids to daycare
     Order the cheapest items on the menu at an expensive restaurant
     Argue with their spouses about money
     Worry that they won’t have enough money each month

Well, I've got some news for these people—that's life.

Everybody has to deal with traffic, limit holiday time, mind their money, and worry—whether they're working for someone else or not.

Underlying these kind of events is usually advice to get into your own business, often through some system—franchise or other—the event holder is selling. Why else would this kind of “financial education” be free?

And while entrepreneurship may be a way to “get rich,” it's usually not in the way it's presented in these seminars.

First you have to define what rich is. For most entrepreneurs rich means independence, not money. In fact most entrepreneurs earn less than workers, but are happier because they're their own bosses.

And if everything on the above list bothers you, wait until you get into your own business. You'll be rushing around (it's called selling) all day; you'll be overjoyed to get two weeks of work-free holidays per year; you'll gladly send your kids to daycare because you'll probably be working 60 to 80 hours a week; and you'll constantly be worrying about money each month—it's part of your job to keep an eye on the business' cash flow.

Look, despite the prevalence of these kind of rah rah seminars, entrepreneurship is not for those who dream of an easy life.

Success takes a long a long, long time, and it's damn hard work. And you have to weather a lot of hard times—like when the economy sours.

And, judging by the timing of this seminar, it's about to.

• Add new comment

Surviving the internship

Jessica Scharien, a summer intern at BCBusiness and TV Week, will be returning to the study of journalism at Thompson Rivers University, in Kamloops, in September 2008.

I recently spent two months interning at Canada Wide Media, whose offices are in Burnaby. A resident of Kamloops, I was excited at the prospect of the “big city” and its offerings (Kamloopsians who don’t know better consider Burnaby the “big city”). And although I am heading into my fourth year of Journalism, have written a slew of articles, and am generally confident of my editorial abilities, upon entering that office, I felt like a fish out of water.

I discovered a few things that will help anyone survive an editorial internship:

Don’t let on that you sometimes have no idea what’s going on
You’ll become more self-reliant and confident in your abilities by default. Figure things out for yourself and ask for help only when absolutely necessary.

Eavesdrop often
I can’t tell you how valuable it was for me to throw that social norm out the window. Unbeknownst to my officemates, they were my best source of information—and gossip! They taught me a lot.

Jessica Scharien

Make certain you know the tone and audience of your publication
Pitch is everything, and having a finely-tuned ear—not only for language, but for your target reader—is a skill sure to ingratiate you to your editors.

Revel in positive feedback
Enjoy any praise you get for your accomplishments, then get on with your work. You’re only as good as your last assignment. Conversely, don’t dwell on criticism: your writing will undoubtedly suffer.

Take charge
Try to do this without stepping on toes, of course. It's essential to show that you're eager to contribute, even if it means getting out of your comfort zone. Perhaps one way to do this is by—cough—writing a blog entry, your first ever.

Kiss ass but know where to draw the line
A publishing house is populated with editors and journalists, people with an anorexic appetite for insincerity.

Embrace the overall opportunity
Regardless of your feelings about your internship when it ends, you'll have learned something from it—not only about magazines and media, but also about yourself and what you want in life.

• Add new comment