20 Things 20-Year-Olds Don't Get

Hi there,

Amen to that. Now, the difficult part is finding people who think like that. We just opened an office outside Atlanta USA and my task is to oversee the hiring of sales folks. I don't know if it's the city itself, or our high expectations but so far all our applicants think they know more than they do and are more interested in the clock-punch than the progression of their own abilities and skills.

In Europe, we have no problem finding motivated individuals who understand that entry-level means just that - the opportunity to prove yourself and earn what you're worth.

All the best,

Sasha.

People have different times when they are most productive. Study after study have shown this. And while there are averages for groups of people those vary by age. It's the reason we shouldn't have teens start school at 8. If we started them at 10 the vast majority would do better.

Now if you have a team that must function as a team there may be something in starting them all at a time that makes the most function well. But really stop and think about it. How many teams truly are like that? Most teams are made up of individuals getting their part done. Yes they need team time but that can be done once a week. But I wouldn't want to start the morning person at 8am if he is best starting at 6am any more than I would want to start a guy at 8am who isn't fully productive till 10am.

That's not to say that all jobs can accommodate every schedule. But if I have a high achiever who works best 3rd shift you can bet I will find a way for him to work 3rd shift.

I've never understood how anyone is missing the boat by not working early. Just do not get it. I understand if you are in sales you need to be there when the people who are buying are. But really ask yourselves (everyone who has should) how many sales did you make early. In sales environment after sales environment I have been in the peak is in the afternoon. So the early bird just got in to prepare for sales later in the day and there is nothing wrong with doing that. But why force someone to do that who works much better later?

The "early to work = productive" idea is a myth. A myth based on some realities of our farming past. A past when you had to do it early for various reasons. But it is a myth when placed into the modern business world. There were multiple reasons that farmers got up at dawn to work and none of them had to do with it being more productive. It had to do with light, weather, heat, and the natural cycle of the animals. We should not be basing our business lives around rules of farming.

And I am not talking about one man armies. I am talking about making each indivdual as productive as possible to move the team & company forward.

"First In - Last Out" the way he ad most people describe it is about hours. I've done it myself. Be super productive for 3 hours and just milk the rest of the day. But leave after everyone else or at least the majority have. It's a great way to "score points" but it doesn't benefits you, your boss, the team, or the company. It is merely playing the game.

Doing more than those around you is great and what you should strive for. It's what companies should want. But are those people rewarded? By paying based on what they do not how long they do it you can reward them. So the guy doing 3 times the work gets 3 times the pay. But the current business world continues to pay people based on hours. They still judge people by the number of hours they put in. And IMO productivity suffers.

I've seen it first hand and I have tried to explain to my bosses how certain pay plans were promoting people to work slower. I won't name names or even say what company it was. But the staff was so afraid of having to work harder that they purposely came down hard on every new hire to get them to slow down. There simply was no incentive to work harder as any increase in pay they could gain would be offset by having to work harder for the same pay later.

And I have friends in union companies that can tell similar stories that happen in factory jobs. And if you don't believe this happens I can show you a real world example of it. You imply need to visit one major factory of your choice that is union. Say John Deere, GM, or Ford for examples I have seen personally. Next you will tour the Jayco Jay Flight factory in Indiana.

In the union factory you will see them moving slow. In the Jay Flight factory you will see people running. They actually call them the Amish mafia due to the fact they pressure anyone too slow to quit.

So what is the difference? John Deere pays by the hour with a small reward for production. Jayco pays by the hour and sets realistic daily goals. Hitting those goals not only gets them bonuses. But they often leave early. That's right they build their 25 or so units and shut the line down. They get paid for their full hours plus they get the bonus.

So working hard and fast is rewarded at Jayco. At John Deere on the other hand working your hours is rewarded. In fact due to overtime you are rewarded even more if it takes too long. Need 20? You don't speed up to get them done. You work normal speed and collect the overtime for anything over 8 hours (yes they get daily overtime).

As for those a lean start up that all is great. But are you sure you wouldn't get three times the production in half the time if you didn't pay by the hour? I merely giving another way to think about it. Paying people based on what needs to be done vs. paying for their time. It will not work for every job. But wouldn't you rather know the fix cost to get _____ done vs. trying to figure out the average when John gets 2 per hour, Jane 4, and Steve 6? And shouldn't Steve make three times more than John since he is producing three times as much?

It's fair to everyone except those who want to milk the clock. And honestly most of them don't want to milk the clock. They simply can do it faster and don't feel like doing three times the work for the same pay. And I personally believe most people work slower and fill their days with "busy work" because they are filling time. They likely are not even conscious of it.

To use an example that Tim Ferris used think about it this way. Have you ever had a day right before your vacation where you seemed to get a weeks worth of work done? Why did you get so much done that day? And why don't you get that much done every day?

Now what if you could get people to work like that every day? Wouldn't you want that? What I am suggestion can do that if implimented right. You simply set the quota, the per item pay, and the deadline. And if you want more you give them an amount they can do max. Say a quota of 8 due by 8 pm. They can do up to 10 if they want and you will pay $10 per. Think someone might be able to do those 10 in 4 hours vs. the normal 8 per 8 hours?

I know I am getting a bit number crazy so I hope everyone could follow along with that.

Finally what someone chooses to spend their money on is their choice. Their are multimillionaires who live like they are on welfare and their are guys making $150k per year driving Lambos. If they are happy and can afford to live that way I don't judge.

What I do judge are those people I meet all the time who waited till they were 50 to buy their Corvette. They always wanted it. But they waited for a variety of reasons. And every single one of them when you really talk to them regrets it.

I work in an RV dealership. I used to directly sell RVs most of my day. The worst part of the job was talking to the people who were buying their first RV after having waited for decades. They regret it.

So what will you (to everyone) regret not buying or doing now? Could you afford to do it now if you stopped saving money to do it later? That is my point. If the only reason you are making money s to make money that is quite pointless. But most (if not all) people are making and saving money to do or buy things. And if they actually looked at the cost they likely could do or buy those things now. Because honestly if you can't afford it now you likely won't be able to save to afford it when you are older.

Now I would never tell anyone to go into debt or buy something with a credit card. That is just silly. But if you want a sports car and can afford a$500 car payment why don't you buy one now. You could be dead two months from now. So why live in the future by saving when you can live in the now and enjoy life.

And you know the great thing? You are motivated like hell to make more money if it will benefit you now vs. later.

As for using the 25% to pay down interest? I don't have any besides my car payments. One car I would need either way and other than buying a cheap car I would likely always have a payment so I just figure that as a monthly bill to use the car. I simply don't lease due to the mileage I put on. As for the Corvette that is my fun budget. Many people I know spend more on getting drunk each month than I do on my Vette. Is mine worse because it has interest on it? I don't think so.

As for using the 25% to invest that is fine if....
1. You are not giving up things now for things later. Remember you may be dead in two months. Never give up something today to get it later. Find a way to have it now and have it later.
2. You are sure that said investments will give you a return worth the money.

Problem with that is that for most people it fails #1. In fact many people save and invest and then buy things on credit cards. Simple math here. Even if the investment makes 8% if they are paying 20% in interest they are losing. And that isn't figuring in inflation.

I don't want anyone to have debt unless said debt is replacing a monthly bill such as a car lease and house rent or it is buying something they consider worth the monthly payment. And even then only if the interest and the payment are reasonable. That is why rent to own and credit card debt is bad. The interest and payments are not reasonable for the item you are getting.

So if someone has extra cash put it to work for you. But I would never suggest traditional investments as the returns are too low and inflation is too high. You need to invest to increase cash flow not to increase wealth. The guy who has a cash flow of $1 million a year and negative net worth is better off than the guy with a net worth of $10 million but only $100,000 in yearly income. Too many people would say the opposite but that is because they don't understand how inflation work.

Many of the people we think of as rich have net worth far lower than people would think. What they have instead is positive and growing cash flow that pays their debts. The rich know how to use other people's money for their gain. The poor become trapped in debt by using other people's money. And the middle class are the ones saving so the rich and the poor can borrow their money.

The poor try to spend their way into feeling rich. Which leads to debt.
The middle class try to save their way into feeling rich. Which leads to a delayed life.
And the rich use their cash flow to actually live rich.

The poor and the middle class could live good lives based on what their income is but they are not willing to live within their means. BTW some middle class people live like they are poor so include them in the poor group for what I meant.

Ok I think I will end this mad rambling now. Hopefully that wasn't too confusing. My brain thinks much faster than I type so at times thoughts and connections are lost when I put them to page.

EDIT: Just saw how long this was. Sorry for making a mountain of text lol

That was a fun read. These are important principles we need to stress for the young adults of today. With the times changing so fast it's hard to keep up. The newer generation is under rapidly changing circumstances that us older folks didn't quite experience growing up. With the internet and information age it's both a blessing and a curse to the young people of today.

iAmNameLess,
I appreciate your comments, however when firing people nowadays the Arbitration procedures can kill a business and more and more states are adopting laws that protect employees and punish the business owner.

I've spent way to many times presenting documents to Arbitrators as to why this employee had to be terminated. The 30, 60 and 90 day evaluations protect the employer from disgruntled employees that have been let go.

Also have an Operations Manual and Training Material that the employee must use during those first 90 days. This was something else I would bring along to show in the hearings that the employee used and signed off on in each section. This proved that the employee was taught, trained, and tested on his/her knowledge and understanding.

Like an old wise COO once taught me, "DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT. It's the only proof you have that you did everything possible and this individual simply was not trainable, wouldn't follow instructions and would not comply with company practices.

Even here in Florida, which is a right to work state, Arbitration for those fired or terminated from their jobs works against business owners and favors the terminated employee.

My advice, Protect Your ASSets. DOCUMENT EVERYTHING or pay the price.